c 

«- 

•' 

< 


<  <  c    <: 


•> 

i 


«          « 
<          « 


c         *     <    « 
«    -c 


V»  <:    «T      <•< 


C<        t        4 

c?   c  c 


tfy 


LINCOLN  ROOM 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


MEMORIAL 

the  Class  of  1901 


ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE, 


BY 


THE   DEMOCRACY   OF   WISCONSIN, 

ADOPTED  IN  STATE  CONVENTION 
t  HVTilwaiakee,  September  3,  1862. 


W«  address  you  in  a  time  of  great  trial  and 
calamity.  We  addrens  you  in  a  time  of  nation- 
al suffering  and  sorrow.  We  nddress  you  in  a 
crinis  of  featful  peril  to  the  Union  and  to  the 
free  institutions  established  by  our  fitheis  in 
the  several  states.  We  do  so  with  a  solemn 
sense  ef  responsibilities  reeling  upon  us  in 
common  with  the  whole  American  people.  We 
do  so  with  the  single  design  of  contributing  all 
our  aid  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  the 
constitution,  nnd  the  liberties  of  the  states. — 
And  we  propose  to  do  so,  according  to  our 
lights,  fearlessly  and  openly,  let  whatever  new 
power  frown  upon  the  ancient  American  birth- 
right of  freedom  of  speech. 

Our  state  constitution,  asserting  (he  inviola- 
ble right  of  liberty  of  pomcul  discussion, 
adopts  nn  American  maxim  ap  old  as  Ameri- 
can independence,  when  it  declares  that  "the 
blessings  of  free  government  can  only  be  main- 
tained hy  frequent  recurrence  to  fundamental 
principles  "  And  whosoever,  in  whatsoever 
position,  asserts  that  there  hns  come  a  time  in 
American  history,  when  freedom  of  speech 
should  be  suppressed,  when  the  safeguard  of 
political  opposition  should  be  abandoned,  and 
the  voilp  of  all  parties,  except  one,  should  be 
silenceoT.  'when'the  administration  of  the  gov- 
ernment should  pass  uacensured  and  unques- 
tioned, when  loyalty  to  the  institutions  of  our 
country  should  give  way  to  passive  sut-tnission 


popular  liberty,  has  been  in  all  history  the 
tyrant's  plea.  When  popular  liberty  succumbs 
to  the  cry  of  stnte  necessity,  the  land  bus  al- 
ready ceased  to  be  free. 

Loyalty,  in  America,  is  the  franchise  of  no 
office  or  officer.  American  loyalty  is  due  to  the 
Constitution  alone.  Fidelity  to  the  Constitu- 
tion is  loyalty  to  the  Union.  There  is  no  Union 
outside  the  Constitution.  The  Constitution  is 
the  Union.  And  whatever  man,  officer  or  party 
assumes  to  be  true  to  ihe  Union  nnd  not  to  the 
Constitution  as  our  forefathers  made  it  and  our 
fathers  enjoyed  it,  is  /lisloval  to  both.  Blind 
suV'miss  on  to  the  Adminictrition  of  the  gov- 
ernment, is  not  devotion  to  the  country  or  the 


Constiiution. 
government 


The  Administration  is  not  the 
The  government   is   established 


hy  the  Constitution  and  rests  in  its  provisions. 
The  Administration  is  as  subject  to  the  Consti- 
tution and  as  responsible  for  its  observance,  as 
the  people.  The  Administration  may  err.  hut 
the  Constitution  does  not  change.  And  when 
the  Administration  violates  the  Constitution, 
loyaUy  to  the  Administration  may  become  dis- 
loyalty to  the  Union.  Devotion  to  the  Consti- 
tution is  the  only  American  loyalty. 

In  times  of  peace  and  prosperity,  there  is 
little  danger  of  the  loyalty  of  the  people  Jorsak- 
ing  the  constitution  for  the  principles  of  a  party, 
or  tue  policy  of  an  Administration.  But  in 
days  of  civil  discord  and  convulsion,  there  is 


to  our  rulers,  has  little  sympathy  with  ihe  j  danger  of  patriotism  being  blindfolded,  mistak- 
spirit  of  the  liberty  won  by  the  valor  of  our  ing  the  object  of  its  faith,  and  transferring  to 
fathers,  or  of  the  free  institutions  established  by  I  the  servant  of  the  altar  the  djvotion  due  only 
their  wisdom.  In  a  free  country,  the  freedom  to  the  altar  itself.  And  in  such  days  it  is  the 


ot  the  people  abides  in  peace  and  war,  in  do- 
mestic trauquility  and  civil  discord  The  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  and  the  constitu- 
tions of  the  several  nf,ates  provide  alike  for  all 


duty  of  all  parties  to  consider  well  their  posi- 
tion, and  to  determine  how  far  their  loyalty  to 
the  constitution  is  consistent  with  their  support 
of  the  Administration  of  the  government. 


the  exigences  of  peace  at  home  and  abroad,  of  j      Almost  as  old  as  the  Union,    founded  in  the 
foreign   war  and  domestic  insurrection,     The  j  broad  principles  of  the   constitution,  identified 


constitution  of  the  United  States  >md  the  laws 
enacted  in  pursuance  of  it.  are  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land  in  all  conditions  of  the  country. 
The  constitution  is  inviolate  in  all  circum- 
stances of  the  people  and  the  government. — 
State  necessity  has  no  power  to  suspend  the 
constitution  or  abridge  the  freedom  of  the  peo- 
ple. State  necessi.y  as  an  excuse  for  invading 


with  all  the  prosperous  history  of  the  United 
States,  the  Democratic  party  has  no  new  prin- 
ciples to  enunciate,  no  new  loyalty  to  pledge. 
It  has  always  been,  as  it  is,  the  party  of  the 
consitution.  In  all  its  career,  the  constitution 
has  been  its  only  creed,  the  altar  of  the  country 
its  omy  place  of  worship.  It  is  human, and  has 
erred.  It  has  been  depressed  by  defeat  and 


elated  by  success,  and  baa  at  times  mistaken 
the  true  path  of  duty.  But  it  baa  never  lost 
sight  of  the  constitution  or  wandered  far  from 
its  ways.  Its  history  chronicles  a  devotion  to 
the  constitution,  and  a  sympathy  with  the 
spirit  of  the  people,  as  just  and  steadfast  as 
human  devo'ion  and  sympathy  can  attain.  If 
not  always  right,  it  has  not  been  often  or  long 
wrong.  Human  history  can  say  no  more  for 
any  party,  in  any  age  or  country.  The  Demo- 
cratic party  needs  to-day  no  platform  but.  its 
history.  But  in  this  unprecedented  and  tertihle 
crisis,  it  becomes  us  to  consider  the  application 
of  old  principles  to  new  conditions. 

The  Democratic  party  has  outlived  many  an- 
tagonists. The  Federal  party,  the  National 
Republican  party,  the  Whig  party,  have  suc- 
cessively struggled  with  it  with  varied  success; 
but  have  successively  disappeared  from  history. 
This  was  not  accidental.  The  democratic  party 
was  as  subject  to  accident  as  its  rivals.  It  h»s 
been  frequently  defeated.  But  it  has  survived 
all  its  defeats,  while  its  ancient  enemies  have 
not  survived  occasional  success.  The  reason  is 
apparent.  It  was  founded  on  the  true  princi- 
ples of  our  government,  and  guided  by  true 
sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  American  institu- 
tions. They  rested  in  a  narrower  comprehen- 
sion of  the  genius  of  the  American  people  and 
iu  mistaken  views  of  the  principles  of  the  Con- 
stitution. They  died  the  death  of  error;  it 
lives  the  life  of  truth. 

The  history  of  the  country  ia  the  history  of 
the  democratic  party.  With  occasional  inter- 
missions, it  has  administered  the  national  gov- 
ernment and  guided  the  march  of  American 
history.  Under  its  influence  the  true  spirit  of 
the  Constitution  displaced  the  narrow  and  un- 
Atnerican  comprehension  of  our  system  of 
government  which  originally  prevailed,  and 
gave  tone  to  the  Administration  of  the  elder 
Adams.  Under  its  influence  the  commercial 
and  economical  interests  of  the  country  ware 
emancipated  from  the  hot  house  system  of  tar- 
iffs and  currency,  which  bound  American  en- 
ergy and^kill  in  the  chains  of  European  theory. 
Under  its  leadership,  the  American  flag  was 
carried  in  glory  through  war,  and  sent  in  peace 
floating  in  security  over  all  the  seas  of  commerce. 
Under  its  leadership  the  area  of  the  country 
was  almost  doubled, and  new  fields  of  enterprise 
were  populated  by  prosperous  American  com 
munities.  Under  the  guidance  of  no  other 
party  was  any  great  stride  made  in  civil  or 
commercial  prosperity,  was  a  war  ever  waged 
\?ith  a  foreign  enemy,  was  an  acre  of  territory 
ever  added  to  our  vast  domain.  The  democratic 
party  led  the  country  from  its  feeble  and  poor 
condition  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  cen- 
tury, to  the  great  and  glorious  empire  of  free- 
dom, the  unparalleled  political  and  material 
prosperity,  in  which  it  met  with  its  last  detent 
iu  the  presidential  election  of  1860. 

Such  defeats  of  the  great  party  of  the  country 
never  betore  carried  with  them  permanent  evil 
to  the  nation,  'rue  old  opponents  of  the  demo- 
cracy took  the  administration  of  the  government 
upon  its  defeat,  and  surrendered  it  again  upon 
its  ouccess,  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  re- 


maining unimpaired  The  ancient  antagonists 
of  the  democracy,  whatever  their  sins  of  doc- 
trine or  action,  were  national  parties,  resting 
upon  no  sectional  policy,  representing  no  sec- 
tional constituency.  When  in  power,  they 
administered  the  government  upon  the  policy 
of  a  majority  of  the  whole  country.  When  in 
opposition, they  spoke  for  a  majority  of  the  whole 
country.  They  were  loyal,  because  they  were 
national.  The  Union  was  safe,  because  they 
were  loyal.  Their  success  was  harmless  to  the 
Constitution,  because  it  was  the  defeat  of  a 
constitutional  party,  and  not  of  the  spirit  of 
the  Constitution  itself. 

The  defeat  of  the  Democratic  party  in  1860 
has  been  fallowed  by  the  revolt  of  several  of 
the  states  from  the  Union  and  by  the  preseat 
terrible  civil  war,  because  it  was  defeated  by  a 
sectional  party.  We  reprobate  that  revolt,  as 
unnecessary, unjustifiable,  unholy.  Devoted  to 
the  Constitution,  we  invoke  the  vengeance  of 
God  upon  all  who  raise  their  sacrilegious  hands 
against  it  ,  whether  wearing  the  soft  gloves  of 
peace  or  the  bloody  gauntlets  of  war.  But  we 
affirm  that  the  revolt  and  consequent  civil  war 
were  a  long  foretold  and  probable  result  of  the 
accession  to  power  of  a  sectional  party, because 
their  success  was  the  defeat  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution. 

In  so  vast  a  union  of  states,  of  such  differing 
interests,  habits  and  institutions,  the  danger  of 
sectional  parties  to  the  peace  and  permanence  of 
the  Union,  was  early  foreseen  by  the  fathers  of 
the  Constitution.  The  Father  of  his  Country, 
himself,  gave  voice  to  these  apprehensions  in 
his  farewell  address  in  1796  He  passed  a  eu- 
logium  upon  the  Union,  which  no  tongue  or  pen 
has  since  improved.  He  urged  the  ''unity  of 
the  Government  which  constitutes  us  one  peo- 
ple." He  impressed  upon  the  nation,  that  it 
was  "a  main  pillar  in  the  edifice  of  our  real  in- 
dependence; the  support  of  our  tranqnility  at 
home;  of  our  power  abroad,  of  our  safety,  of 
our  prosperity,  of  the  very  liberty  which  we  so 
highly  prize."  In  a  spirit  of  prophecy,  he  cau- 
tioned the  people  and  their  posterity  against  the 
dangers  it  might  encounter,  and  with  his  part- 
ing words  invoved  them  'indignantly  to  frown 
upon  the  first  dawning  of  every  attempt  to  alien- 
ate any  portion  of  oar  country  from  the  rest,or 
to  enfeeble  the  sacred  ties  which  now  linked  to- 
gether tfce  various  parts.''  He  enlarged  upon 
the  mutual  dependence  of  the  various  parts  of 
the  country.  North  and  South,  East  and  West, 
he  warned  us  against  parties  founded  on  "geo- 
graphical discriminations  whence  designing 
men  might  endeavor  to  excite  a  belief  that  there 
is  a  real  difference  of  local  interests  and  views.' ' 
He  foretold  that  ''one  of  the  expedients  of  par- 
ty is  to  acquire  influence  within  particular  dis- 
tricts, is  to  misrepresent  the  opinions  and  aims 
of  other  districts."  He  forewarned  us  that  "we 
could  not  shield  ourselves  too  much  against  the 
jealousies  and  heart  burnings  which  tend  to 
render  aliens  to  each  other  those  who  onght  to 
be  bound  together  by  fraternal  affection." — 
Fearful  prophecy ,  fearfully  fulfilled?  How  the 
great  spirit  of  the  illustrious  Washingtoa  would 
have  mourned  had  he  been  able  to  foresee  the 


fall  and  terrible  measure  of  the  danger  he  fore- 
told, the  insane  and  terrible  disregard  of  his 
holy  advice,  which  has  accomplished  it 

There  was  no  reason  why  tne  several  States 
of  the  Union  should  not  have  abided  togethtr 
in  harmony,  for  all  time.  Their  domestic  insti- 


Consfitution  and  denounced  its  guarantees  of 
the  rights  of  slavery  as  a  compact  of  sin  and 
shame.  Many  of  its  teachers  openly  advocated 
diniinion  ;  and  many  more  proclaimed  an  irre- 
pressible conflict  between  the  domestic  systems 
of  the  north  and  the  south,  arguing  that  the 


tutions,  their  social  condition  and  their  habits  |  prate?  of  the  Union  must  become  all  free  or  all 

of  life,  differed  indeed  from   the  beginning. —  I  slave. 

And,  in  the  language   of  General  Jackson,  this  j      These  dangerous  and  revolutionary  doctrines 


difference  was  unavoidably  increased  by  the 
varying^  principles  upon  which  the  American 
colonies  were  originally  planted;  principles 
which  had  taken  deep  root  in  their  social  rela- 
tions before  the  revolution,  and  therefore,  of 
necessity,  influencing  their  policy  since  they 
became  free  and  independent  States."  The 
progress  of  all  the  states  was  great,  but  fre- 
quently in  different  directions.  But  the  Consti- 
tution left  to  the  several  states  the  exclusive 
control  of  their  domestic  concerns;  and  had  the 
spirit  of  the  Constitution  prevailed,  differences 
of  domestic  institutions  would  never  have  dis- 
turbed the  peaceful  relations  of  the  states  in 
the  Union.  The  slavery  of  the  African  race 
formed  from  the  beginning  the  most  important 
and  dangerous  of  these  differences.  The  Con- 
stitution was  a  compact  of  compromises,  and  in 
no  instance  more  wisely  or  generously  BO  than 
in  relation  to  the  institution  of  slavery.  And 
had  the  several  states  of  the  Union  abided  in 
their  politics  by  that  necessary  and  magnani- 
mous spirit  of  compromise,  the  Union  would 
now  be  undisturbed,  and  ancient  harmony  and 
prosperity  would  reign  where  civil  war  HOW 
rages. 

Fanaticism  is  the  bane  of  harmony.  It  has 
disturbed  many  states  and  overturned  many 
governments.  It  is  one  of  the  most  difficult 
bocial  evils  to  deal  with.  It  has  a  growth  of 
prosperity,  and  yet  gains  strength  under  perse- 
cution. It  often  appeals  to  the  most  generous 
prejudices  of  humanity;  it  often  wears  the  garb 
of  religion  and  morality  ;  it  has  wonderful 
powers  of  proselytism;  it  has  great  capacities  to 
make  wrong  look  like  right,  and  to  deck  errors 
in  the  robes  of  truth.  It  is  a  terrible  apostle  of 
evil.  Discord  follows  its  lead,  and  revolution 
too  often  is  the  end  of  its  career. 

Unfortunately  among  many  elements  of  good 
and  greatness,  fanaticism  emigated  to  this 
country.  From  time  to  time,  it  has  played  its 
part  in  marring  the  record  of  civil  and  relig- 
ious liberty  in  American  history.  It  has,  from 
time  to  time,  sent  forth  various  heretical  dog- 
mas of  politics.  It  has  asserted  a  h'gher  law, 
above  the  Constitution  itself.  It  has  ia  recent. 


have  always  been  combatted  by  the  democratic 
party.  The  democracy  has  no  apology  to  make 
for  southern  slavery.  We  regard  it  as  a  great 
social  evil.  But  we  regard  it  as  a  misfortune, 
not  a  crime.  The  crime  ia  in  the  presence  of 
the  African  race  upon  the  continent  That  is 
a  crime  of  the  past,  not  of  the  present.  And 
even  in  «he  past,  it  was  less  the  crime  of  the 
south,  than  of  those  who  grew  rich  in  the  slave 
trade,  and  who  now  clamor  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  which  they  themselves  planted.  We 
hold  this  country  to  be  the  possession  of  the 
white  race,  and  this  government  to  be  instituted 
by  white  men  for  white  men.  We  commisserate 
the  condition  of  the  slave  ;  but  we  are  unwil- 
ling to  violate  the  constitution  in  his  behalf,  or 
to  disturb  society  by  emancipating  four  millions 
of  an  inferior  race  in  a  land  possessed  by  a  su- 
perior race.  It  is  the  sin  of  history  that  the 
African  race  is  here  ;  once  here  in  great  num- 
bers, the  proper  condition  of  the  African  was 
subjection  in  some  form  to  the  White.  Equali- 
ty was  impossible.  Nature  has  made  social 
equality  impossible  without  fatally  ginning 
against  her  laws,  and  without  social  equality 
political  equality  is  impossible.  Nature  never 
placed  the  races  together;  when  brought  to 
gether,  the  servitude  of  the  inferior  is  the  best 
condition  for  both  races  ;  a  necessary  evil  re- 
sulting from  the  violation  of  natural  law  in 
bringing  them  together. 

But  fanaticism  did  not  so  see  it.  Fanaticism 
at  the  north,  unembarrassed  by  the  presence  t»f 
slavery,  did  not  see  slavery  as  a  necessary  evil, 
but  only  as  an  abstract  wrong.  It  could  make 
no  allowance  for  the  condition  of  the  south,  and 
had  no  toleration  for  the  compromises  of  the 
constitution  or  the  safeguards  which  it  extend- 
ed to  the  institutions  of  the  south. 

For  a  long  time  the  abolition  party  was  a 
weak  political  minority:  but  it  was  from  the 
beginning  an  energetic  and  dangerous  apostle 
of  unconstitutional  doctrines  and  sectional 
jealousies  and  distrusts. 

As  long  ago  as  1837,  the  warrior  statesman, 
Andrew  Jackson,  in  his  farewell  address, 
warned  us  against  it.  lie  quoted  the  warnings 


ConstitutioD. 


memorable  words,  sought  to  do  in  the  name  of  j  of  Washington;  and   said:    "The  lessons  con- 
God  what  could  not  be  done  in  the  name  of  the  I  tained  in  this  invaluable  legacy  of  Washington 

to  his  countrymen,  should  be  cherished  in  the 
heart  of  every  citizen  to  the  latest  generttion, 
and  perhaps  at  no  period  of  time  could  they  be 
more  usefully  remembered  than  at  the  present 
moment.  For  when  we  look  upon  the  scenes 
which  are  passing  around  us,  and  dwell  upon 
the  pages  of  bis  parting  address,  his  paternal 
counsels  would  seem  to  be  not  merely  the  off- 
spring of  wisdom  and  foresight,  but  the  voice  of 
prophecy,  fortelling  events,  and  warning  us  of 


of  the  country  in  political  abolition.  The  north 
had  rid  itself  of  the  incubus  of  slavery.  The 
north  was  as  responsible  for  slavery  in  the 
south,  as  the  south  itself  is.  But  fanaticism 
became  offended  with  southern  slavery  ;  and 
overlooking  home  evils  and  home  reforms,  it 
devoted  itself  to  the  discussion  of  the  evils  of 
African  slavery,  clamoring  against  its  criminal- 
ity and  urging  its  abolition.  It  disregarded  the 


the  evil    to    come.    *     *     * 


The 


federal  constitution  was  then  regarded  by  him 
as  an  experiment.  ******  The 
trial  has  been  made.  It  has  succeeded  beyond 
the  proudest  hopes  of  those  who  framed  it. 
Every  quarter  of  this  widely  extended  nation 
has  felt  its  blessings  and  shared  in  the  general 
prosperity  produced  by  its  adoption.  But  amid 
this  general  prosperity  and  splendid  success, 
the  dangers  of  which  he  warned  us.  are  be- 
coming every  day  more  evident,  and  the  s:gns 
of  evil  are  sufficiently  apparent  to  awaken  the 
deepest  anxiety  in  the  bosom  of  the  patriot.  We 
behold  systematic  efforts  publicly  made  to  sow 
the  seeds  of  discord  between  different  parts  of 
the  United  States,  and  to  place  party  divisions 
directly  upon  geographical  distinctions;  to  ex 
cite  the  south  against  the  north,  and  the  north 
against  t.ie  south,  and  to  force  into  the  contro 
ver^y  the  most  delicate  and  excited  topic-,  upon 
which  it  is  impossible  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
Union  can  ever  speak  without  strong  emotions 
.Appeals  too  are  constantly  made  to  sectional 
interests,  *  *  *  *  *  and  the  pos- 

sible dissolution  of  the  Union  has  at  length 
become  an  ordinary  and  familiar  subject  of 
discussion. 

'•'Has  the  warning  voice  of  Washington  been 
forgotten,  or  have  designs  already  been  formed 
to  sever  the  nation  ?  *  *  *  *  *  * 
Mutual  suspicions  and  reproaches  may  in  time 
create  mutual  hostility  ;  and  artful  and  design- 
ing men  will  always  be  found,  who  are  ready  to 
foment  these  fatal  divisions  and  to  inflame  the 
natural  jealousies  of  different  sections  of  the 
country.  *******  Delude  not 
yourselves  into  the  belief  that  a  breach  once 
made  may  be  afterwards  repaired.  If  the  Union 
is  ouce  severed  the  line  of  separation  will  grow 
wider  »nd  wid*r,  and  the  controversies  which 
aie  debated  and  settled  in  the  balls  of  legisla- 
tion, will  be  tried  in  fields  of  battle  and  deter- 
mined by  the  sword.  *****  The 
Constitution  cannot  be  maintained  nor  the  Union 
preserved,  in  opposition  to  public  feeling,  by  the 
mere  exertion  ot  the  coercive  powers  confided 
to  the  general  government.  The  foundations 
must  be  laid  in  the  *ffectious  of  the  people  ;  in 
the  security  it  gives  to  life,  liberty,  character 
and  property  in  every  quarter  of  the  country; 
and  in  the  fraternal  attachment  which  the  citi 
zeus  uf  tne  several  states  bear  to  one  another, 
as  members  of  one  politic  tl  family  mutually 
contributing  to  promote  the  happiness  of  each 
other.  Heucu  the  uitizentt  of  every  state  should 
studiously  a»oid  every  thing  calculated  to  wound 
the  seusibility  or  offend  the  just  pride  of  the 
people  of  other  states  ;  and  they  should  frown 
any  proceedings  within  their  own  borders  likely 
to  disturb  th«  irauquility  of  their  political  breth- 
ren in  other  portions  of  the  Union.  *  * 
Eich  state  has  the  unquestionable  right  to  reg- 
ulate its  own  internal  concerns,  according  to 
its  own  pleasure.  *****  ^n,j 
effort-  on  the  p.ti-t  of  the  people  of  other  states 
to  cast  odium  ou  i  licit  institutions,  aud  all  meas- 
ures calculated  to  disturb  iheir  rights  of  pro- 
perty or  to  put  iii  jeopardy  their  peace  and  in- 
ternal traiiquilny,  are  in  direct  opposition  to 
the  spirit  iu  wniuh  the  Union  was  founded  and 


must  endanger  its  safety.  Motives  of  philan- 
thropy may  be  assigned  for  this  unwarrantable 
interference,  and  weak  men  may  persuade  them- 
selves for  a  moment  thnt  they  are  laboring  in 
the  cause  of  humanity  and  asserting  the  rights 
of  the  human  race;  but  every  one  upon  sober 
reflect!  "ii  will  see  that  nothing  but  mischief  can 
come  from  these  improper  assaults  upon  the 
feelings  and  rights  of  others.  Rest  assured 
tbat  the  men  found  busy  in  this  work  of  dis- 
cord, are  not  worthy  of  your  confidence,  and 
deserve  your  strongest  reprobation." 

So  spoke  one  of  the  greatest  and  wisest  pat- 
riots of  American  history.  Counsels  so  sacred 
and  warnings  so  solemn,  were  disregarded  by 
the  abolitionists  ;  and  the  abolition  party  con- 
tinued to  teach  its  treasonable  doctrines  and  to 
preach  its  crusade  against  the  south  and  its 
institutions. 

The  result  so  wisely  foretold,  .necessarily 
followed.  The  denunciation  of  the  South  at  the 
north,  was  met  by  denunciation  of  the  north 
at  the  south.  Hostility  jn  the  north  to  the 
institutions  of  the  sonth  provoked  hostility  in 
the  south  to  the  people  of  the  north.  The  great 
mass  of  the  people  in  the  south  were  loyal  to 
the  Union  ;  but  a  class  of  puplio  men  in  the 
south  had  for  some  time  been  tainted  with 
disloyalty,  and  aimed  to  separate  the  southern 
states  from  the  Union,  whenever  an  opportu- 
nity should  arise  to  carry  the  people  of  the 
south  with  them.  These  men  zealously  con- 
tributed to  foment  the  abolition  excitement  at 
the  north,  aud  exaggerated  its  power  and  im- 
portance at  the  south.  Thus  faction  begot  fac- 
tion ,  and  the  abolition  party  at  the  north  pro- 
duced the  disunion  party  at  the  south  The 
spirit  of  Northern  abolition  and  Southern 
disunion  insensibly  grew  together  for  years, 
until  the  period  of  the  last  presidential  election, 
when  a  bitter  animosity  existed  between  Inrge 
and  powerful  factions  in  the  north  and  in  the 
south. 

In  the  meantime  in  1854 — 6  the  whig  party 
most  unhappily  abandoned  its  organization,  and 
the  present  republican  party  WHS  founded  on  the 
basis  of  the  old  abolition  party.  The  best  and 
most  enlightened  pturiotp  of  the  whigs  refused 
all  alliance  with  the  new  sectional  party;  but 
the  »ast  body  of  the  wbigs  surrendered  ttteir  na- 
tional politics  to  its  narrow  and  sectional  bigotry. 
The  great  leaders  of<he  whig  party  were  gone. 
The  mighty  voice  of  Webster  which  always 
spoke  for  the  whole  country  and  never  uttered 
a  sectional  dogma,  was  silent  forever.  The 
great  head  aud  heart  of  Clay,  whose  statesman- 
ship had  served  to  save  the  Union  from  more 
than  one  peril  and  was  as  broad  as  the  Union 
itself,  lay  low  in  death.  H.id  these  great  lights 
of  the  whig  party  survived,  we  fuUy  believe 
that  they  would  have  saved  their  ,iarty  from 
the  shame  ot  prostituting  itself  iu  the  unholy 
embraces  of  a  sectional  and  revolutionary  or- 
£auiz  ition.  But  they  were  gone;  pigmies  satin 
the  seats  of  giants;  the  whig  puny  went  out  of 
being,  and  the  republican  party  was  ingrafted 
on  the  abolition  party. 

It  is  true  that  the  Republican  party  avows  its 
abolition  tendencies  less  manfully  than  the  old 


abolition  party,  They  assume  to  interfere  with 
slavery  in  the  territories  and  other  places  sub- 
ject to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  only 
and  not  in  the  states.  This  thin  disguise  of 
their  real  policy,  is  fully  exposed  by  the  uni- 
form tone  of  their  discussions  of  slavery,  by 
their  resistance  of  the  fugitive  slave  law,  by 
their  avowal  of  an  irrepressible  conflict  between 
the  institutions  of  the  north  and  south,  and  by 
the  whole  tenor  of  their  legislation  wherever 
and  whenever  they  have  been  in  power.  That 
a  large  and  respectable  body  of  the  party  have 
no  sympathy  with  its  abolition  proclivities,  is 
perhaps  true;  but  there  is  no  room  for  doubt 
that  the  abolition  element  tn  that  party  is  its 
largest,  most  energetic,  and  influential  ele- 
ment. 

With  the  strength  and  influence  of  the  Re- 
publican party,  grew  the  strength  and  influence 
of  the  party  of  secession.  Both  were  sectional; 
both  revolutionary. 

It  would  be  iJlo  to  show  the  revolutionary 
character  of  the  secession  party.  Its  revolution- 
ary purposes  were  avowed.  The.«Republican 
party  was  no  less  revolutionary,  though  its 
revolutionary  tendencies  were  less  manifest 

It  is  evident, from  whut  has  already  been  seen 
that  Washington  and  Jackson,  fit  representa- 
tives of  the  sages  and  patriots  of  the  revolution 
nry  and  succeeding  eras,  regarded  sectional 
parties  as  revolutionary.  Under  our  system 
they  are  essentially  so  ;  for  no  sectional  party 
could  accomplish  any  end,  excep'  by  the  sever- 
ence  of  ihe  bonds  of  fraternity  uad  unity  be- 
tween the  different  parts  of  the  country  upon 
which  the  Uhion  rests.  It  is  not  we  wuo  day, 
it  is  the  sages  aud  patriots  of  the  past  who  have 
said,  that  in  American  politics  every  sectional 
party  is  essentially  disloyal  to  the  Union. 

lu  almost  every  state  of  the  Union,  in  which 
the  republican  party  have  the  power,  they  en- 
acted laws  impeding  the  execution  of  laws  ot 
the  Union  States.  Such  laws  were  passed  by 
them  in  this  state.  A  republican  judiciary  iti 
this  state  nullified  acts  of  Congress,  assumed  to 
overrule  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  ol 
the  United  States  in  cases  arising  under  the 
Constitution  aud  laws  of  the  Union,  disobeyed 
its  mandates,  and  sanctioned  by  judicial  deci- 
sion the  forcible  rescue  of  prisoners  held  under 
the  judicial  process  of  the  United  States.  But 
not  content  with  his  measure  of  disloyalty,  the 
republican  legislature  o?  this  state  passed  in 
1859,  and  has  ever  since  refused  to  rescind,  re- 
solutions setting  at  defiance  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  and  asserting  the  doctrine  ot 
secession  as  broadly  as  it  has  ever  been  asserted 
by  any  southern  «tate.  This  is  well  understood 
at  home,  by  democrats  aud  republicans;  but  to 
avoid  the  suspicion  of  exaggeration  abroad,  we 
here  insert  two  of  these  resolutions  in  full: 

"Jtesolved,  That  the  government  iotmed  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  not 
made  the  exclusive  or  final  judge  of  the  extent 
of  the  powers  delegated  to  itself;  but  that,  as 
in  all  other  cases  of  compact,  having  no  com- 
mon judge,  each  party  has  an  equal  right  to 
judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  infractions,  as  of  the 
mode  aud  measure  of 


"  Resolved,  That  the  nrlnciple  of  construc- 
tion contended  for  by  the  party  which  now  rules 
in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  that  the  General 
Government  is  the  exclusive  judge  of  the  ex- 
tent of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  stop  nothing 
short  of  despotism,  since  the  discretion  of  those 
who  administer  the  Government,  and  not  the 
Constitution,  would  be  the  measure  of  their 
powers  ;  that  the  severa;  states  which  formed 
that  instrument,  have  the  unquestionable  right 
to  judge  of  its  infraction  ;  and  that  a  positive 
defiance  of  those  sovereignties,  of  all  unauthor- 
ized acts  done  or  attempted  to  be  done  under 
color  of  that  instrument,  is  the  RIGHTFUL  REM 
EDY." 

These  resolutions  had  relation,  not  to  the 
acts  of  the  executive  of  the  United  States  or 
even  of  Congress,  but  to  a  solemn  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  upon 
the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  Sutes. 
This  is  the  doctrine  caught  from  seceding 
South  Carolina  by  Republican  Wisconsin,  aud 
repeated  by  the  Republican  party  of  Wisconsin, 
in  full  communion  with  the  Republican  party  of 
the  North,  to  justify  secession  in  every  disloyal 
state  in  the  South. 

Thus  the  Republican  party,  as  well  as  the 
secession  party,  was  revolutionary.  Aud  these 
two  revolutionary  parties  grew  in  numbers  and 
influence  duwu  to  the  Presidential  election  in 
1860,  when  the  Democratic  party  was  defeated 
by  the  sectional  influence  of  both 

The  sectional  party  of  the  South  succeeded 
in  intruding  some  members  into  the  Democrat- 
ic Conveniion;  and  when  defeated  there  by  the 
steadfrtst  loyalty  of  the  true  Democracy,  put 
in  nomination  ;t  reneg-ide  from  his  party  aud 
his  country.  The  sectiouul  party  of  the  North 
put  in  nomination  a  distinguished  geiitleiii'tn, 
the  author  of  the  doctrine  that  the  several 
states  must,  ultimately  become  all  slave  or  all 
free. 

The  Democratic  party  nominated  ae  their 
candidate,  a  statesman  now  no  more,  of  great 
experience  and  ability  in  public  affairs,  of 
great  energy  and  integrity  g*  character  aud 
life,  the  author  of  the  only  just  aud  practical 
solution  of  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  terri- 
tories, whose  whole  public  life  was  devoted  to 
the  maintenance  of  the  Constitution  as  it  is, 
and  the  Union  as  it  was;  aoid  whose  zeal  for  the 
preservation  of  the  country  sacrificed  his  life 
in  its  prime. 

The  history  of  the  convention  which  nomi- 
nated Mr.  Douglas,  pluiul>  shows  that  the 
champions  of  secession  had  no  hope  to  carry 
the  people  of  the  South  witn  them  suve  by  de- 
feating the  candidate  ot  the  Democratic  party. 
The  whole  tone  and  temper  of  the  Republican 
leaders  aud  press  at  the  North,  before  and  dur- 
ing the  session  of  the  convention,  plainly  shows 
that  they  had  no  hope  of  electing  their  candi- 
date, save  by  diverting  the  vote  of  the  touih 
from  the  Democratic  candidate  to  the  secession 
candidate.  Thus  the  action  ot  the  two  sec- 
tional parties  tended  to  the  same  result  of  the 
Presidential  election.  Had  Mr.  Douglas  betn 
elected,  secession  could  not  have  prevail- 
ed at  the  South,  and  the  several  aims  ot  boih 


6 


sectional  parties  would  have  been  alike  defeat- 
ed. 

The  result  was  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Douglas  and 
the  election  of  the  Republican  candidate.  We 
have  no  personal  objection  to  the  distinguish- 
ed gentleman  who  now  sits  in  the  seat  of  Wash- 
ington. His  election  was  perhaps  less  mischie- 
vous than  ihat  of  any  other  prominent  Republi- 
can. Tbe  evil  of  his  election  belongs  to  his 
party,  not  himself.  The  good  he  has  done  is  in 
a  great  degree  personal  to  him.  Republican  as 
he  is,  he  hns  not  forgotten  his  old  national  patri- 
otism. If  he  has  not  always,  he  has  often, 
resisted  the  abolition  element  in  his  party  and 
stemmed  me  tide  of  its  revolutiooary  course. 
In  this,  be  has  done  the  country  immeasurable 
service  ;  and  we  hope  that  he  will  continue,  to 
stand  as  a  barrier  as  well  against  the  moat  de- 
structive faction  of  his  own  party,  as  against  the 
armed  enemy  of  the  Union.  Tbe  responsibilities 
of  his  position  are  such  as  might  awe  any  man  ; 
and  in  all  his  efforts  to  sustain  the  constitution 
against  revolution  and  innovation,  he  has  our 
hearty  sympathy  and  support. 

The  election  was  the  signal  for  the  movement 
of  secession.  It  was  no  excuse  for  the  guilt  of 
disunion.  The  insincerity  and  bad  faith  of  the 
leaders  in  the  movement  is  demonstrated  by  the 
lact  that  in  both  Houses  of  Congress  there  was 
a  safe  majority  against  the  republican  party. 
But  the  truth  is  that  the  apostles  of  secession 
were  traitors  at  heart,  independent  of  the  elec 
tlon  ;  and  that  they  wanted  and  used  the  elec- 
tion only  as  a  lever  to  precipitate  the  south 
from  its  allegiance.  Thej  duped  the  south  in- 
to the  belief  that  the  entire  people  of  the 
north  were  infected  with  the  leprosy  of  abo- 
lition. 

As  it  was,  we  fully  believe  that  the  majority 
of  the  whole  southern  people  stood  loyal  to  the 
Union  and  that  in  no  seceding  state,  except 
South  Carolina,  was  the  ordinance  of  secession 
fairly  carried  before  the  people. 

The  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  though  effected 
by  a  minority  of  votes,  was  carried  in  all  the 
forms  of  the  Constitution,  was  obligatory  upon 
all  the  states  and  the  people  thereof,  was  no 
palliation  for  the  unhallowed  act  of  secession, 
was  no  ground  for  the  risks,  sufferings,  hor- 
rors, and  ruin  of  the  most  shameless  and  de- 
testable civil  war  known  in  the  history  of  civ- 
ilized man. 

The  standard  of  revolt  was  raised,  and  civil 
war  began.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  rel- 
ative guiH  of  the  two  sectional  parties  in  the 
causes  which  prepared  the  South  for  revolution, 
the  sole  guilt  in  the  war  itself  rests  with  the 
Southern  party  of  secession. 

Congress  has  declared  the  war  is  waged  by 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  not  in  the 
spirit  of  conquest  or  subjugation,  nor  for  the 
purpose  of  overthrowing  or  interfering  with  the 
rights  of  institutions  of  the  states,  but  to  de- 
fend and  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  to  preserve  the  Union  with  all 
the  dignity,  equality  and  rights  of  the  several 
states  unimpaired;  and  that  as  soon  as  these 
objects  are  accomplished,  the  war  ought  to 
cense.  Thus  carried  on,  the  war  is  not  only 


expedient,  but  necessary;  not  only  justifiable, 
but  holy.  It  is  a  defensive  war.  It  is  H  war 
of  self  preservation.  Disunion,  once  success- 
ful, would  be  a  recurring  evil;  and  instead  of 
leaving  a  Northern  Union  and  a  Southern  Con- 
federacy, would  continue  its  destructive  career 
until  all  of  the  states  would  be  broken  and  dis- 
severed by  petty  sovereignties  and  wasted  by 
petty  warfare.  We  cannot  calmly  contemplate 
disunion.  We  know  and  love  the  blessings  of 
Union;  but  no  human  eye  can  penetrate  the 
dart  and  terrible  future  which  lies  beyond  the 
grave  of  the  Constitution.  The  war  for  the 
preservation  of  the  Constitution  has  all  our 
sympathies,  all  our  hopes  and  all  our  energies 

But  we  have  a  right  to  demand,  it  is  our  duty 
to  demand,  and  we  do  demand,  that  this  war  be 
carried  on  by  the  government  for  the  constitu- 
tion alone,  and  under  the  constitution  alone. 
To  that  end,  amongst  others,  we  retain  our  polit- 
ical organization,  and  will  use  our  best  efforts 
from  time  to  time  and  at  all  times,  to  regain  for 
the  democratic  party,  under  the  forms  and 
sanctions  of  the  constitution,  the  control  of 
the  legislative  and  executive  departments  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States. 

In  the  meantime,  the  war  must  be  carried  on 
and  sustained  with  all  the  energies  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  people  thereof.  No  blood  or 
treasure  is  too  'dear  a  price  to  re-purchase  the 
Union  inherited  from  our  fathers  and  to  trans- 
mit unimpaired  to  our  children. 

It  is  not  our  province  to  relate  the  history  of 
the  war,  or  to  criticise  its  movements.  Many 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  loyal  brethren 
have  patriotically  gone  forth  to  battle  for  the 
Union.  All  haye  done  nobly,  all  have  suffered 
nobly,  many  have  died  nobly.  The  angel  of 
death  has  made  bloody  vacancies  in  many  a 
northern  home.  Few  have  escaped  without  the 
loss  of  aome  near  or  dear  friend.  American 
liberty  has  been  re  baptized  in  loyal  blood;  and 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  loyal  men  are  now  in 
the  field,  or  hastening  hither,  to  conquer  or  die 
for  the  constitution.  We  owe  it  to  the  memory 
of  the  dead,  we  owe  it  to  the  living'  hosts  in  the 
field,  we  owe  it  above  all  to  the  constitution,  to 
respond  with  cheerful  alacrity  to  every  constitu- 
tional call  for  men,  to  submit  to  every  constitu- 
tional exaction  of  treasure.  We  owe  all  that  we 
have,  and  all  that  we  are,  to  the  Union;  we 
must  pay  the  whole  debt  if  it  be  necessary. 

But  war  is  not  our  whole  duty.  We  owe  a 
political  debt  to  the  Constitution,  and  that  too 
must^e  paid.  We  adopt  the  language  of  Gen. 
Jackson,  thai,  war  alone  cannot  preserve  the 
Constitution  against  disunion  War  can.and  we 
hope  speedily  will,  subdue  the  armies  of  the 
revolted  states.  War  can,  and  we  hope  speedily 
will  disarm  every  traitor,  possess  every  place  of 
strength,  and  uphold  the  grand  old  flag  on  every 
flag  staff  in  the  United  States.  But  when  war 
shall  have  accomplished  all  that  war  can  do,  the 
Union  will  not  be  fully  restored.  The  partici- 
pation of  the  revolted  states  in  the  Government 
of  the  Union  must  of  necessity  be  voluntary. — 
War  has  no  power  to  compel  such  voluntary 
action.  The  peace  and  permanency  of  the  re- 
stored Union  will  depend,  in  a  great  measure, 


in  the  confidence  of  the  people  of  the  recovered 
states.in  the  justice  of  the  General  Government, 
and  in  the  faithfnl  observance  of  their  Constitu- 
tional rights.  War  has  no  power  to  inspire  this 
confidence.  The  stability  of  the  Union  then, as 
in  times  past,  will  need  the  mutual  good  will  j 
and  affection  of  the  people  of  the  several  states. 
War  has  no  power  to  control  the  affections. — 
The  people  of  the  South  will  return  to  the  Union, 
when  they  do  return,  wounded  in  their  pride 
and  embittered  in  their  feeling.  When  they  re- 
turn, they  will  return  as  brethren,  and  merit 
the  treatment  of  brethren.  The  law  may  de- 
mand its  victims,  but  those  guiltless  of  the  war, 
and  those  forgiven  by  the  law,  will  again  be  our 
political  brothers.  The  restored  states  will  re 
turn  to  the  Union  with  all  the  rights  of  other 
states.  To  win  back  the  confidence  and  affec- 
tion of  their  people,  and  to  restore  the  Union 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  the  sectional 
party  at  the  North  must  be  vigorously  corabatted 
and  in  due  time  overthrown  at  the  ballot  box 
by  the  Democratic  party,  the  only  national. 
Constitutional  party  left  in  the  land. 

If  the  Democratic  party  should  be  disbanded, 
or  should  suffer  itself  to  remain  inactive,  the 
south  would  retain  its  old  distrust  of  the  Re- 
publican narty,  and  its  old  aversion  to  the  gen- 
eral government  administered  by  it.  It  would 
then  believe  that  the  whole  north  was  indeed 
given  up  to  abolition,  and  that  the  weaker  south 
would  receive  BO  justice  from  the  stronger 
north.  But  if  the  south  sees  the  Republican 
part/  defeated,  and  the  ancient  defender  of  its 
rights  against  sectional  influences  once  more  in 
power  iu  the  Union,  or  even  bold  in  maintain- 
ing its  old  political  warfare  against  sectional 
parties  and  influences,  then  may  the  people  of 
the  south,  misled  from  their  allegiance  by  the 
detestable  intrigues  of  ambitious  demagogues, 
well  hope  to  find  once  more  in  the  Union  old 
rights,  old  blessings,  old  safety.  Disunion  is 
the  offspring  of  sectional  parties,  and  the  com- 
plete restoration  of  the  Union,  in  all  its  old 
peace  and  harmony,  rests  upon  the  utter  rout, 
north  and  south,  of  a.ll  sectional  parties.  The 
spirit  of  the  constitution  must  go  hand  in  hand 
with  the  letter*of  the  constitution. 

It  is  no  less  essential  to  the  people  of  the  loy- 
al states  to  establish  the  full  reign  of  the  spirit 
of  the  constitution;  to  restore  as  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land,  in  peace  and  war,  in  prosperity  j 
and  adversity,  in  all  circumstances  of  society, 
the  constitution,  the  whole  constitution,  and 
nothing  but  the  constitution. 

We  claim  the  right,  as  free  and  loyal  Ameri- 
can citizens,  to  discuss  the  conduct  of  the  ad- 
ministration,  and  to  censure  it  when  we  deem 
it  worthy  of  censure.  Our  fathers  won  and 
established  this  right, and  we  will  not  surrender 
it.  We  utterly  deny  to  the  Executive  of  the 
United  States  the  power  assumed  by  Congress 
in  the  sedition  act  of  1798  to  suppress  opposi- 
tion to  the  Administration,  or  restrict  the  full 
freedom  of  political  discussion  in  the  loyal 
states.  This  would  be  to  assume  a  power  above 
the  Constitution.  The  administration  has  no 
more  power  to  suspend  the  Constitution,  than 
have  the  people.  The  administration  is  the 


child  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  servant  of  the 
people.  The  child  must  not  reject  the  authority 
of  the  parent,  nor  the  servant  ueurp  the  rights 
of  the  master.  The  Constitution  and  the  laws 
give  the  administration  ample  power  to  protect 
itself  and  enforce  its  authority  in  the  loyal 
states;  and  i;  would  at  this  day  be  an  evil  ex- 
ample pregnant  with  anarchy  and  disorder,  to 
disregard  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  loyal 
states  and  their  people.  We  cannot  bring  our- 
selves to  the  belief  that  such  a  reign  of  terror 
is  impending  over  us.  We  respect  the  adminis- 
tration too  much  for  such  an  apprehension.  But 
if  such  times  are  upon  us,  we  must  play  our 
parts  like  men,  and  not  disavow  our  principles 
and  opinions  like  cowards.  Loyal  to  the  core 
to  the  Constitution  and  government  of  the  United 
States,  the  democracy  has  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  assertion  of  its  principles  and  the  discus- 
sions of  its  political  views. 

Allowing  much  of  minor  evil  to  pass  unnotic- 
ed, in  view  of  the  difficult  patt  which  the  ad- 
ministration has  had  to  play,  there  are  some 
grave  acts  of  tbe  Executive  and  legislative 
departments  of  the  government,  for  which  we 
hold  the  republican  party  responsible,  and  for 
which  we  arraign  it  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion. 

We  denounce  the  mischievous  and  unconsti- 
tutional tone  of  much  of  the  discussion  in  both 
Houses  of  Congress  at  its  late  session.  We  hold 
the  general  tenor  of  these  discussions  against 
the  rights  of  slavery  in  the  slave  holding  states, 
and  in  favor  of  the  exercise  by  Congress  of  pow- 
ers not  delegated  by  the  constitution,  to  be  em- 
inently dangerous  in  sustaining  the  spirit  of 
secession  at  the  south  and  increasing  a  disre- 
gard for  the  constitution  at  the  north. 

We  denounce  the  abolition  of  slavery  In  the 
District  of  Columbia,  at  the  cost  of  the  United 
States,  as  unconstitutional,  and  peculiarly 
mischievous  at  this  time  in  giving  force  to  the 
distrust  at  the  north  in  all  the  slave  states. 

We  denounce  the  sweeping  and  indiscrimi- 
nate measures  of  confiscation  and  emancipation 
as  unconssitutional,  and  as  having  a  strong 
tendency  to  unite  the  whole  south  against  the 
Union,  as  one  man. 

We  believe  that  these  and  kindred  things 
have  had  a  great  weight  in  diminishing  the 
numbers  and  influence  of  the  Union  Party  at  the 
south. 

We  deny  the  powers  of  the  executive  to  sus- 
pend the  writ  ofhibeax  corpus  in  the  loyal  states. 
We  deny  that  this  act,  materially  changing  the 
laws  of  the  land,  is  an  executive  act.  We  have 
the  authority  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  pronounced  by  the  voice  of  Chief 
Justice  Marshal  as  long  by  1807,  and  affirmed 
by  every  commentator  on  the  Constitution  since, 
that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
it  is  a  legislative  power.  No  king  has  assumed 
such  a  power  in  England,  since  the  revolution. 

We  deny  the  power  of  the  executive  to  make 
arrests  in  the  loyal  states.  The  suspension  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  if  validly  done,  would 
not  authorize  this.  There  are  federal  courts  in 
all  the  loyal  states  with  full  power  and  juris- 
diction to  punish  all  crimes  against  the  United 
States.  No  Exercise  of  executive  power  has 


ever  been  more  odious  than  lettns  de  eaehtt,  by 
which  rhe  executive  could  arrest  and  imprison 
without  judicial  writ,  accusation,  or  trial.  We 
hold  this  manner  of  arrest  in  the  loynl  states  of 
persons  not  in  arms  against  the  government  to 


W«  believe  that  the  executive  acts  of  whfcb. 
we  complkin,  were  doce  rather  in  inadvertence 


by  soborflkate  officers,  than  in  the  deliberate 
purpose  or  subverting  the  Constitution,  or 
wi<h  t'?e  sanction  of  the  President.'  The 


be  in  violation  of  Sec  2,  Art  3,  of  the  Consti-  Th«  f-trength  of  power,  however,  is  too  great 
tution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  Ar'.  4.  5  »nd  and  too  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  people, 
6  of  the  amendments  thereto  And  wt  consider  ;  to  p-iss  without  the  protest  of  the  free  nnd 
this  practice  i*  vr  -pc^ss^ry  and.  tending  to  loytl  1'emocracy.  If  done  as  part  of  a  full  and 
brini  the  r  ns'itu'ior  into  Disregard.  '  dehhejute  policy,  they  strike  at  the  root  of 

We  deny  the  power  of  the  executive  to  trnm-  j  Ameri  an  liberty,  and  we  are  drifting  from  the 
me!  the  freedom  of  the  pre.'s  by  the  suppression  •  safe  anchorage  <  f  the  Constitution  into  an  un- 
of  newspapers.  The  press  is  judicially  responsi-  known  wilderness  of  cruel  wiiter?. 
ble  for  abuses;  hut  the  freedom  of  the  press.  Let  whatever  may  come,  the  Democracy  will 
subject  to  judicial  remedies.  ?s  essential  to  the !  abide  rv  their  lime  honored  principles,  by  the 
freedom  of  the  people.  And  we  protest  against  \  Constitution  and  the  Union  "We  will  not  sur- 
the  manifest  partiality  with  which  this  new  and  render  our  rights  nor  forsake  them.  We  will 
dangerous  power  is  exercised.  niiiint,'  n  our  constitutional  liberty  at  all  h«z- 

We  deny  the  recont  semi-official  definitions  of  nn Is.  >ud  as  a  necessary  step  towards  that  end, 
the  crime  r'°  treafjn.  "Treason  against  the  !  we  w,i  i  maintain  the  Uoion  in  like  manner. — 
United  States  shall  consist  only  in  levying  w  »r  We  are  for  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  the  Un 
against  them,  or  in  adhering  to  their  enemies,  ion  as-  it  was." 

giving  them  nid  and  comfort."  In  commenting  !  V-'e  •.  ill  upon  our  brethren  throughout  the  state 
on  this  definition  in  the  constiiution.  Judge  to  or;  ,mize  the  party  for  the  coming  election 
Story  quotes  with  approbation  the  remark  of :  of  meubers  of  Congres  ,  -uid  of  the  State  Legis- 
Montecquien.  that  if  the  crime  of  treason  be  in- j  'atun-.  We  c»ll  upon  them  to  nominate  as  can- 
determinate,  that  alone  is  sufficient  to  muke  any  |  didates  tried  and  true  democrats  on  strictly 
government  degenerate  into  arbitrary  power;  '  part  /  principles,  inviting  theof  support  all  per- 
and  he  denounces,  «s  the  Supreme  Cou-t  of  the  '  sous.  l>ut  acting  in  affiliation  with  uo  o'her  par- 
United  States  had  rejected,  the  doc'rnie  of  con  •  ty  or  faction  whatever.  We  call  upon  tiiem, 
struc/ive  treason.  It  was  in  apprehension  of  the  ;  for  the  sake  ot  "liberty  and  onion,  now  and 
dangers  of  constructive  treason,  that  the  defi  forever,  one  and  it  separable,  to  exert  all  their 
nition  of  this  crime  was  introduced  into  the  ',  Constitutional  right  and  power  to  elect  conser 
body  of  the  constitution  itself :  and  il  if,  a  defini-  vative  men.  who  will  not  blasphemously  assume 
tion  far  more  in  keeping  with  the  rights  of  a  free  |  to  do  any  official  act  ir.  the  name  of  God,  which 
people  than  su"h  vague  phrases  as  disloyal  prac-  \  cannut  bo  dune  under  tt'<-  sanctk':i  of  tlie  COE- 
(tces.  The  statutes  of  the  United  States  amply  stitution.  So  doing  th«  deuiocnicy  of  Wiscon- 


provide  for  the  punishment  of  fre.iaonable 
crimes  under  the  coostiiution,  and  we  recognize 
no  power  in  the  executive  to  enlarge  them. 


sin  will  best  serve  the  cause  of  ue  Union,  and 
give  the  highest  proof  of  then  loj'alty  to  the 
Constitution. 


We  deny  the  power  of  the  executive  to  trans-  We  claim  the  right  on  their  behalf  and  our 
port  persons  accused  of  crime  in  the  loyal  states,  -iwu,  to  censure  the  political  acts  of  the  Admia- 
frorn  the  state  where  the  crime  is  alleged  to  have!  i^trution,  when  we  think  that  they  dt'gerve  i', 
been  committed,  to  any  o'her  state  or  place  for!  and  to  do  all  lawfully  within  our  power  to  &ut» 
trial;  to  cause  the  trial  of  any  person  in  the!taiu  the  suoremacy  of  the  Constitution  in  all 
loyal  states  for  any  crime  before  military  tribu-  places  north  and  south,  and  over  all  persons  il 
nals  or  other  courts,  except  before  a  jury  in  the  i  otfice,  and  out  of  it.  And  to  that  end  we  devc.e 
Constituti'/n'al  Distrfct  Courts  of  the  United  i  our  bear's,  minds  and  estates  to  aid  the  Adm'.n- 
States;  or  to  subject  such  persons  to  such  trial, !  istratiou  in  the  most  vigorous  and  speedy  pios- 
except  upon  the  indictment,  of  a  grand  jury. !  ecution  of  the  war  waged  against  the  Union  by 
These  rights  are  guaranteed  to  every  person. !  the  revolted  states.  We  believe  that  in  so  doing 


under  all  circumstances,  by  the  constitution 
itself  And  we  fully  believe  that  the  loyal 
people  of  the  United  States  are  worthy  of  their 


we  fulfill  the  most  sacrod  duty  «we  owe  to  the 
Constitution. 

And  to  this,  we  solemnly  pledge  the  faith  of 


fathers,  who  formed  the  constitution,  and  will  i  our  party  and  ourselves,  until  the  war  be  ended 
be  found  unwilling  to  surrender  Hghts  so  sacred  |  and  the  Constitution  restored,  as  the  supreme 
and  BO  essential  to  their  liberties.  '  law  of  the  land,  in  every  state  of  the  Union. 


PATKIOT  OFFICE  PRINT,  MADISON,  W1S. 


WAR    POWER 


ETHE  CONSTITUTION 


MAT.    H.    CARPENTER'S 


R  E  V I  K  W 


OF 


MR,  RYAN'S  ADDRESS. 

"6f  "'  h- 

7n  <•«/-,  H,<2t' 

j  ^TT^.  o,  Vinci 

'/^P  y        *          />•  "1      ///  >  »         '     *  "**T 


/ 
J 


» 


MILWAUKEE,   WIS.  : 

Ciiloric  Presses  of  Shirr  &  Son.  212  and  214,  East.  Water  Street. 

•  1862. 


,iq  yj 


M.  IL  CARPENTER'S  REVIEW 


OF 


MR.  RYAN'S  ADDRESS. 


/ix* . .  _ 

as 

-— — 

IT  would  be  carrying  the  joke  too^far,  and  doing  injustice  to  a  large  por- 
tion of  our  people,  to  represent  this/address  as  embodying  the  views  of  the 
democrats  of  Wisconsin.  George  B.  Smith,  Esq.,  one  of  the  oldest  and 
most  eloquent  democratic  orators  in  the  state,  and  A.  R.  R.  Butler,  Esq., 
who  is  too  well  known  as  a  democrat  to  need  any  commendation,  opposed 
it  with  all  their  power ;  and  Jonathan  E.  Arnold,  a  patriot,  a  democrat,  an 
orator  and  a  gentleman,  put  forth  one  of  his  happiest  efforts  protesting 
against  the  bitterness,  of  its  partisan  spirit,  at  a  time  when  the  government 
stands  in  need  of  the  united  voices  and  exertions  of  the  whole  people. 

This  convention  was  as  remarkable  as  the  address.  There  were  probably 
never  so  many  extreme  men  in  one  assembly  before.  As  one  of  the  dele- 
gates said  of  the  rest,  not  one  in  twenty  believed  in  the  address.  But  they 
were  angry  at  the  administration ;  angry  at  everybody  and  every  thing  ; 
they  could  not  express  their  feelings  among  their  loyal  neighbors  ;  and  find- 
ing themselves  in  strength,  and  gaining  confidence  from  numbers,  they  de- 
termined to  have  one  long,  loud,  saucy  talk,  and  then  be  silent  forever  more. 
In  this  unamiable  state,  wanting  a  physician  who  could  "  minister  to  a  mind 
diseased,"  they  naturally  looked  to  Mr.  Ryan,  who  had  the  ability  and  was 
in  the  mood  to  do  it.  Accordingly  before  the  convention  was  organized, 
Mr.  Eldredge  of  Fond  du  Lac,  moved  the  appointment  of  a  committee  on 
resolutions,  with  Mr.  Ryan  for  Chairman.  This  was  rather  a  left-handed 
compliment  to  the  presiding  officer,  who  is  ordinarily  supposed  to  have  suffi- 
cient intelligence  to  appoint  committees  ;  but  the  boys  were  not  going  to 
forego  their  treat,  they  wanted  a  "  saucy  talk  ;  and  they  fixed  it  in  advance, 
so  that  no  blunder  could  interfere  with  their  designs.  After  the  permanent 
organization,  Mr.  Eldredge  renewed  his  motion  for  the  appointment  of  a 
committee  of  five  on  Resolutions,  with  Mr.  Ryan  for  chairman.  This  was 
carried,  and  Mr.  Ryan  presented  his  resolution,  filling  five  columns  in  fine 
typo  in  the  News.  Mr.  Ryan  called  it  an  address  ;  but  no  committee  had 
been  raised  to  draft  an  address  ;  and  the  production  in  question  should  be 
called  "  Mr.  Ryan's  resolution  to  kill  the  democratic  party."  Some  have 
suggested  that  there  was  on  his  part  a  suppressed,  disguised  patriotism  in 
writing  this  address ;  that  he  really  deprecated  the  existence  of  parties  in 
this  perilous  hour,  and  therefore  determined  to  destroy  the  only  party  in 
which  he  was  entitled  to  raise  his  voice,  or  exercise  his  septic  powers. — 


There  are   some   features  of  the  address   that  render  this  theory  plausible  ; 
hut  upon  the  whole  it  is  not  certain  that  this  is  its  true  explanation. 

The  democratic  party  has  heen  called  by  its  enemies  the  pro-slavery  party. 
This  has  been  repelled  as  a  slander  by  ail  the  democrats  of  Wisconsin. — 
They  have  said  that  with  slavery  we  had  nothing  to  do ;  that  it  was  a  local 
institution,  protected  iu  the  States  by  the  constitution  ;  that  the  provisions 
of  the  constitution  in  relation  to  slavery,  w«ro  a  p.vrt  of  the  compromises 
upon  which  that  instrument  was  based  ;  and  that  it  was  our  duty  to  obey 
every  provision,  whether  \ve  approved  or  disapproved.  The  Baltimore  Con- 
vention in  1840,  set  forth  the  democratic  en  ed  upon  the  slavery  question  as 
follows : 

"Resolved,  That  Congress  has  no  power,  under  the  constitution,  to  interfere  with  or  con- 
trol the  domestic  institutions  of  the  several  States;  and  Unit  such  Stales  are  the  sole  and 
proper  judges'- of  everything  pertaining  to  their  own  affairs,  not.  prohibited  by  the  constitu- 
tion; that  all  efforts,  by  abolitionists  or  others,  made  to  induce  Congress  to  interfere  with 
questions  of  slavery,  or  take  incipient  steps  in  relation  thereto,  are  calculated  to  lead  to 
the  most  alarming  and  dangerous  consequences,  and  that  all  such  c (forts  have  an  inevita- 
ble tendency  to  diminish  the  happiness  of  the  people,  and  endanger  the  stability  and  per- 
manency of  the  Union,  and  ought  not  to  be  countenanced  by  any  friend  to  our  political  in- 
stitutions." 

This  resolution  was  re-adopted  by  the  National  democratic  conventions, of 
1844,  1848,  and  pledged  the  democracy  to  let  shivery  alone,  as' a  thing  it  had 
no  right  to  interfere  with.  It  is  believed  that  no  democratic  convention  in  a 
fret)  state  ever  went  beyond  this,  to  a  justification  of  slavery  _/>er  se.  Jelter- 
son  pronounced  slavery  a  curse  and  a  sin.  But  hear  what  Mr.  Ryan  says: 

"  Nature  never  placed  the  races  together.  When  brought  together,  the  servitude  of  the 
inferior  is  the  best,  condii  ion  of  both  races  :  a  necessary  evil  resulting  from  the  violation 
of  a  natural  law  in  bringing  them  together.  But  Fanatacis.m  did  not  so  sec  it,"  &c. 

Mr.  Jefferson  did  not  so  see  it;  nobody  in  a  free  state  except  Mr.  Ryan, 
ever  did  see  it  so,  nor  was  it  over  heard  of  in  a  slave  state  until  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  promulgated  the  infamous  dogma  to  the  astonishment  of  the  Christian 
world.  The  Spaniards  have  been  universally  execrated  in  history  for  ensla- 
ving the  Indians  But  according  to  Mr.  Ryan,  this  was  perfectly  right. — 
The  sin  was  in  the  white  race  coining  here.  "  Nature  never  placed  the  ra- 
ces together."  But  when  the  white  man  had  committed  the  sin  against  na- 
ture of  discovering  and  settling  upon  this  continent,  then  inhabited  by  an  in- 
ferior race,  he  was  perfectly  justified  in  enslaving  it.  "  It  is  the  best  condi- 
tion for  both  races.'1'' 

Is  this  democracy?  Is  this  the  creed,  which  if  a  man  does  not  believe, 
he  shall  be  driven  from  the  face  of  Mr.  Ryan  and  the  whole  democratic 
party  ?  Mr.  Ryan  tells  us  in  the  cutset  that  "  it  becomes  us  to  consider  the 
application  of  old  principles  to  new  conditions  ;"  and  he  has  set  us  the  ex- 
ample with  a  vengeance.  The  most  cruel  andbarhorous  slavery  ever  known 
on  earth,  the  slavery  of  the  Indians  by  the  Spaniards,  is,  by  the  doctrine  of 
this  address,  justified,  per  se  ;  and  that  too  in  the  platform  of  a  democratic 
convention,  in  a  free  and  Christian  country,  in  the  hist  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Did  Mr.  Eldredge  of  Fond  du  Lac,  and  John  W.  Carey,  Esq.,  of 
this  city,  both  of  whom  voted  for  this  address,  believe  in  this  part  of  it;  or 
did  they  willingly  vote  for  an  address  they  did  not  believe  in  ?  If  this  com- 
plete justification  of  slavery  per  se  is  an  article  of  democratic  faith,  who  ori- 
ginated it?  Who  has  ever  before  advocated  it?  In  what  convention  has 
it  ever  found  favor,  or  in  what  democratic  platform  has  it  ever  been  a  plank? 

This  address,  adopted  by  a  convention  of  which  the  News  admits  that  not 
a  few  of  its  members  '•'•had  never  before  participated  in  the  proceedings  of  a 
democratic  convention,  or  voted  a  democratic  ballot"  commits  the  very  fault, 


the  democrats  have  so  long  condemned  in  the  abolitionists.  It  assumes  to 
interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States,  by  discussing  its  merits,  and  concludes 
with  the  implied  advice  that  it  should  never  bo  abolished.  "It  is  the  best 
condition  for  both  races."  The  abolitionist  reasons  over  the  same  ground 
and  ends  with  the  advice  that  it  .should  be  abolished,  because  it  is  the  worst 
condition  for  both  races.  Now  while  the  two  extremes  differ  in  their  ad- 
vice, they  concur  to  violate  the  principle  of  political  faith,  announced  in  the 
Baltimore  platform,  that  the  States  are  '•'•the  sole  and  proper  judges  of  every 
thing  pertaining  to  their  own  affairs." 

alai-tii!' 

But  a  far  more  objectionable,  because  more  dangerous  part  of  the  address, 
is  its  manifest  apology  for  the  rebellion  ;  and  its  labored  efforts  to  throw  the 
blame  of  it  upon  the  North.  Paragraph  is  piled  upon  paragraph  to  show 
that  the  abolitionists  are  really  answerable  for  this  \var;  and  the  occasional 
express  repudiation  of  the  necessary  inference  from  all  its  statements  and 
arguments,  cannot  redeem  it  with  any  intelligent  reader.  A  skillful  lawyer, 
wishing  to  apologize  for  a  murderer,  would  say,  "Now,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  I  do  not  justify  my  client,  but  you  should  consider  the  circumstances 
of  his  offence.  My  client  was  an  honest,  peaceable  man,  pursuing  his  own 
calling,  on  his  own  premises ;  the  deceased  came  there ;  came  with  insult- 
ing language  and  menacing  gestures;  my  client  declined  any  discussion 
with  him  and  requested  him  to  go  away ;  but  the  deceased  became  more 
rude  aud  insolent,  heaping  upon  my  unfortunate  client  every  kind  of  offen- 
sive epithet,  until  finally  overpowered  with  the  anger  the  deceased  had  in- 
spired, he  struck  a  fatal  b,low  ;  a  blow  the  law  cannot  justify,  tfcc."  Now 
read  this  long  address  and  see  jf  it  is  not  in  this  spirit  and  of  this  character 
throughout.  The  trick  of  oratory,  to  pretend  one  thing  while  1'eally  accom- 
plishing another,  and  exactly  the  reverse,  is  not  new  with  Mr.  Ryan.  An- 
thony practiced  the  same  art  in  his  consummate  oration  to  the  Roman  citi- 
zens after  the  death  of  Cfesar,  in  which  every  school  boy  knows  how  he 
protested,  that  Brutus  was  "  an  honorable  man,"  aud  at  the  same  time  con- 
vinced the  people  that  he  was  the  vilest  of  malefactors.  Had  Anthony  said 
Brutus  was  a  murderer,  the  people  would  not  have  listened  to  him.  Mr. 
Ryan  would  not  have  been  listened  to,  had  he  said  in  words  the  rebellion 
was  justifiable.  But  both  could,  and  both  have  disguisedly,  but  percepti- 
bly, labored  to  carry  their  hearers  to  a  conclusion  directly  opposite  to  the 
point  proposed.  It  is  pretended  that  the  object  of  the  address  is  to  incite 
the  party  to  sustain  the  government;  and  how  docs  it  accomplish  this?  By 
laboring,  laboring,  laboring  to  show,  that  if  the  North  is  not  absolutely  in 
the  wrong,  yet  the  South  have  been  annoyed  and  worried  till  human  nature 
could  endure  no  more,  "Thrice  is  he  armed  who  hath  his  quarrel  just ;" 
and  this  address  labors  to  show  that  our  quarrel  is  unjust ;  that  the  South 
have  taken  up  arms  in  consequence  of  the  triumph  of  a  sectional  party  in 
the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  What  more  has  Jeff.  Davis  ever  claimed  or  • 
said  ? 

The  differences  between  the  North  and  South,  have  swolltwi  beyond  the 
reach  of  •argument ;  a  terrible  exertion  of  physical  strength,  must  settle  the 
question.  If  the  South  were  conquered,  if  this  rebellion  were  crushed  out, 
then  it  would  be  proper  to  discuss  what  should  be  her  treatment.  But  at 
this  time  when  rebel  artillery  is  belching  on  the  capital,  the  direct  and  only 
effect  of  such  an  address  is  to  make  our  people  doubt  the  justice  of  their 
cause,  and  thus  enfeeble  and  unnerve  the  arm  of  the  government.  It  is 
matter  of  unfeigned  astonishment  and  regret  that  any  man  could  be  found 


6 

willing,  at  such  a  time,  to  perform  this  task  ;  and  it  is  hot  less  astonishing 
that  any  man  who  has  invited  and  urged  his  neighbors  and  friends  to  volun- 
teer to  fight  in  this  war  on  the  part  of  the  North,  should  after  they  had 
moved  to  the  battle-field,  give  his  voice  for  a  formal  address  to  be  promul- 
gated ex  cathedra — tending  to  show  that  these  volunteers  are  engaged  in  a 
war,  which  to  say  the  least  of  it,  had  been  brought  on  bi/  the  ayyressions  of 
the  North  upon  the  South. 

There  are  many  things  in  this  address  that  will  astonish  democrats.— 
But  the  principal  thing  that  is  so  apparently  unpatriotic  as  to  strike  the  eye 
and  offend  the  heart,  is  its  direct  and  open  repudiation  of  the  last  counsels 
of  Douglas  to  the  American  people.  And  when  a  member  of  the  conven- 
tion moved  to  insert  in  the  address  a  part  of  one  of  Mr.  Douglas'  great  ap- 
peals to  patriotism  above  party,  the  incongruity  was  felt  to  be  so  striking, 
that  the  mover  was  begged  to  withdraw  the  amendment,  and  save  the  con- 
vention that  was  willing  to  endorse  Ryan,  from  the  open  shame  of  repudiat- 
ing Douglas.  But  it  was  apparent  that  the  sentiments  of  both  could  not 
stand  side  by  side  in  the  same  address ;  and  Douglas'  appeal,  that  for  dis- 
interested patriotism  has  no  counterpart  in  American  literature,  that  lends 
new  charms  and  imparts  a  higher  lustre  to  his  name  and  character,  was 
voted  down. 

Mr.  Douglas  said : 

"Whoever  is  not  prepared  to  sacrifice  party  organizations  and  platforms  on  the  altar  of 
his  country  does  not  deserve  the  support  and  countenance  of  honest  people.  How  are  we  to 
overcome  partizan  antipathies  in  the  midst  of  men  of  all  parties  ,so  as  to  present  a  united 
front  in  support  of  our  country  ?  We  must  cease  discussing  party  issues,  make  no  allusions 
to  old  party  tests,  have  no  criminations  and  recriminations,  indulge  in  no  taunts  one 
against  the  other  as  to  who  has  been  tha  cause  of  these  troubles." 

And  again  : 

"Let  him  be  marked  an  no  true  patriot  who  will  not  abandon  all  such  issues  in  times  like 
this." 

Mr.  Ryan,  after  indulging  plentifully  in  criminations,  and  discussions  as 
to  "  who  has  been  the  cause  of  these  troubles,  proceeds  thus  : 

"  We  call  upon  our  brethren  throughout  the  State  to  organize  the  party  for  the  coming 
election  of  members  of  Congress,  and  of  the  State  Legislature.     We  call  upon  them  to  nom 
inate  as  candidates  tried  and  true  democrats,  on  strictly  party  principles,   inviting  the  sup 
port  of  all  persons,  but  acting  in  affiliation  with  no  other  party  or  faction  whatever." 

These  quotations  are  sufficient  to  show  that  if  Douglas  was  a  patriot,  this 
address  is  most  unpatriotic  and  pernicious.  No  two  addresses  were  ever 
more  diametrically  opposite.  Thoir  authors  had  essentially  different  views 
and  purposes  ;  and  it  may  be  left  without  further  remark  to  the  people  to 
determine  which  was  the  patriot,  which  loved  his  country,  which  was  the 
best  exponent  of  democratic  duty,  and  which  address  is  the  safer  guide  out 
of  the  horrors  of  these  "  disjointed  times." 


Thus  far  we  have  spoken  of  this  address  as  expressive  of  the  peculiar 
views  of  its  author.  But  there  is  one  position  not  argued  but  assumed  as  a 
premiss,  the  invention  of  which  cannot  be  charged  upon  Mr.  Ryan.  It  is 
this  : 

"The  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  constitutions  of  the  several  States,  pro- 
vide alike  for  all  the  exigencies  of  peace  at  home  and  abroad,  of  foreign  war  and  domestic 
insurrection." 

The  traitor  Breckenridge,   shortly  before  joining  the  rebel  army^  main- 


7 


tained  in  the  Senate  and  in  public  speeches,  substantially  the  same  doctrind. 
And  if  he  could  have  convinced  others  of  its  soundness,  he  probably  would 
still  have  remained  in  the  Senate,  and  there  have  contributed  more  effective 
aid  to  the  South,  than  he  can  with  his  sword  in  the  field.  Mr.  Yancey  late- 
ly writing  to  the  people  of  one  of  the  revolted  States,  expressed  his  surprise 
at  the  resources  the  North  had  been  able  to  command,  and  his  utter  aston- 
ishment and  horror  at  the  disregard  shown  in  Congress  for  the  constitution 

This  language  seems  more  appropriate  in  a  traitor's  letter  than  in  the  ad- 
dress of  a  Northern  democratic  convention,  but  comes  to  the  same  practical 
end.  If  the  constitution  does  indeed  provide  "  for  all  the  exigencies  of  peace 
at  home  and  abroad,  of  foreign  war  and  domestic  insurrection,"  then  it  is  cer- 
tain that  the  South  \vi\l  succeed,  if  we  heed  the  constitution  ;  and  it  would 
tend  very  much  to  discourage  the  North  in  this  contest  to  convince  them 
that  they  are  daily  violating  the  constitution  they  supposed  they  were  fight- 
ing to  maintain.  But  fortunately  for  us,  and  for  all  that  is  at  stake  in  this 
controversy,  the  doctrine  here  announced  cannot  be  maintained. 

The  constitution  is  the  chart  of  civil  government'  and  as  such  provides 
for  the  raising  of  armies  and  navies,  and  that  the  President  shall  be  Com- 
mander-in-Chief,  &c.  All  this  is  part  of  the  machinery  of  the  civil  State. 
It  is  not  very  certain  what  is  meant  by  "  provides  for  all  the  exigencies  of 
foreign  war."  The  address  is  extremely  general  and  oracular  at  this  point. 
One  of  the  exigencies  of  foreign  war,  placed  General  Scott  and  his  army  in 
the  city  of  Mexico.  Now  is  it  meant  that  the  constitution  provides  for  such 
a  case,  and  directs  what  General  Scott  might  or  might  not  do  in  an  enemy's 
capital  ?  If  it  means  anything  it  means  this  :  and  yet  how  unfounded  is  the 
assertion.  The  constitution  no  where  directs  when,  where,  or  how  a  battle 
shall  be  fought,  or  a  city  be  taken  ;  and  if  General  Scott  had  looked  to  its 
provisions,  he  would  have  found  not  one  word  applicable  to  the  subject ;  or 
that  any  one  has  ever  pretended  was  applicable.  When  our  army  inarched 
to  Mexico,  it  went,  not  under  the*  constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  un- 
der the  law  of  nations  and  the  usages  of  war  ;  and  had  precisely  the  same 
rights  and  duties  as  an  array  of  Great  Britain  or  Russia  in  the  same  situa- 
tion. The  army  in  an  enemy's  country,  or.  to  quote  the  address,  eugaged  in 
foreign  war,  never  consults  the  constitution  of  the  civil  State  at  home  ;  the 
army  of  a  republic  or  a  monarchy,  or  of  an  absolute  despotism,  conducts  its 
campaigns  by  the  same  code  ;  totally  unaffected  by  the  frame  of  govern- 
ment which  sent  it  forth.  And  our  constitution  has  not-pretended  to  regu- 
late or  control  the  law  of  nations,  or  to  determine  the  usages  of  war;  nor 
could  it  do  so,  if  it  had  attempted.  What  then  is  meant  by  the  language, 
the  "  constitution  provides  for  all  the  exigencies  of  foreign  war."  Any 
meaning  that  occurs  is  entirely  unfounded.  If  it  is  simply  meant  that 
the  frame  of  the  civil  State,  and  its  powers  in  tnere  civil  matters  remain 
the  same  whether  engaged  in  Avar,  or  at  peace,  then  this  may  be  conceded  ; 
but  the  concession  cannot  aid  the  address — nor  justify  its  deductions.  It  is 
true  that  during  the  Mexican  war.  Congress  had  no  power  to  pass  a  law 
respecting  the  establishment  of  religion,  or  creating  a  title  of  nobility,  more 
than  it  could  in  time  of  peace. 

But  because  the  civil  powers  of  the  government  are  limited  by  the  consti- 
tution alike  in  Avar  or  peace,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  Avar  power  is 
defined,  limited  or  controlled  by  the  constitution.  It  is  a  very  artful  feature 
of  this  address — one  borrowed  from  the  methods  of  Mr.  Calhoun — that  ii 
passes  over  the  really  debatable  ground  upon  this  subject,  and  without  argu- 
ment or  discussion,  assumes  as  premises,  the  very  points  in  controversy.  It 
is  asserted,  that  the  constitution  provides  for  all  the  exigences  of  war,  and 
thence  it  is  argued  irresistably,  that  the  constitution  is  belno-  violated  in  the 


8 

prosecution  of  the  war.  But  the  premises  assumed  are  totally  denied.  The 
great  fallacy  in  this  part  of  the  address  is  at  the  starting  point,  and  in  what 
is  assumed  with  perfect  confidence  as  an  axiom.  If  a  man  were  to  com- 
mence an  argument  by  assuming  that  the  moon  is  made  of  green  cheese,  he 
would  have  little  difficulty  in  proving  that  its  presence  would  not  "  illumine 
the  night." 

But  to  return  ;  if  there  is  any  meaning  in  this  part  of  the  address,  it 
means  that  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  apply  to  the  persons  against 
whom  the  war  is  waged,  and  regulate  the  extent  to  which  the  war  may  be 
carried,  as  against  such  persons.  A  few  examples  will  put  this  pretence  at 
rest.  The  constitution  provides  for  instance,  that  no  man  shall' be  deprived 
of  life  without  due  process  of  law.  Does  this  provision  apply  to  the  conduct 
of  the  war,  and  can  no  rebel  be  killed  till  he  has  been  first  tried  and  .con 
victed  by  a  jury?  Then  every  rebel  slain  on  the  battle-field  is  murdered.— 
So  we  may  take  up  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  one  by  one,  and  show 
that  no  one  of  them  applies  or  pretends  to  apply  to  the  conduct  of  the  war. 
War  is  entirely  outside  the  constitution  ;  the  constitution  makes  preparation 
for  it,  but  is  silent  as  to  its  management.  It  furnishes  the  instrumentalities, 
but  does  not  direct  their  use.  This  is  as  true  of  domestic  as  of  foreign  war. 
The  constitution  commands  the  President  to  take  care  that  the  laws  are 
faithfully  executed,  and  gives  him  the  army  and  navy  for  that  purpose. — 
And  the  President  and  the  military  and  naval  officers  under  him  must  of  ne- 
cessity, judge  in  the  first  instance,  of  the  exigences  of  the  war,  and  prose- 
cute it  in  all  places  till  the  principal  object  be  accomplished.  The  power' to 
arrest  is  as  undoubted  as  the  power  to  kill,  and  is  as  necessary  an  exercise 
of  the  war  power.  The  power  to  destroy  property,  if  necessary  to  the  suc- 
cessful prosecution  of  the  war,  is  of  the  same  undoubted  nature.  It  is  wor- 
thy of  notice,  that  in  the  constitution,  the  protection  of  life,  liberty  and 
property,  are  united  in  the  same  provision,  as  follows  :  No  person  shall  "  be 
deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property j^tjjput  due  process  of  law;"  and  all 
stand  upon  the  same  footing  saiar  as,' this  Tliscussion  is  concerned.  An  ex- 
ercise of  the  war  power  may  sweep  them  all  away  ;  and  the  constitution  no 
more  pretends  to  protect  -oife  UwutUie  °Jjnt'r5  as  against  the  war  power. — 
Would  it  be  pretendodjttfat  if ~a*~  spy  came  within  the  military  lines,  under 
such  circumstances  as  are  forbidden  by  the  usages  of  war,  that  the  Presi- 
dent, or  his  servants,  could  not  arrest  him  without  warrant  ?  And  could  it 
make  any  difference  that  the  spy,  whose  character  was  clearly  ascertained, 
should  be  found,  ift'one  of  the  loyal  states?  Suppose  the  government  should 
be  collecting  at  Oincinnatti  a  large  force  for  a  particular  purpose  ;  and  a  sol- 
dier from  the  rebel  army  should  be  sent  in  disguise  within  our  camps  to  spy 
out  the  number,  condition  and  destination  of  the  troops,  would  there  be  tilt- 
slightest  doubt  of  the  right  and  duty  of  the  President  or  his  military  subor- 
dinates, summarily  to  arrest  such  person,  and  subject  him  to  military  trial 
and  punishment  as  a  spy? 

Yet  the  address  says,  in  most  charming  generality  of  expression  : 

"  We  deny  the  power  of  t!ie  Executive  to  make  arrests  in  the  loyal  $(/<!,:<;.     *          There 
are  federal  courts   in  all    the    States  with    full  power  and  jurisdiction  to  punish  <//'.• 
against  the  United  States." 

Again  suppose  the  success  of  a  particular  campaign  should  be  found  to 
depend  upon  entire  secrecy;  yet  some  newspaper  in  New  York  should 
persist  in  publishing  day  after  day  full  particulars  of  all  preparations  and 
plans  of  the  campaign,  thus  acquainting  the  rebels  with  the  information 
necessary  to  render  it  a  failure.  Would  any  man  doubt  that  this  was,  if 
done  knowingly  and  wickedly,  giving  aid  to  the  rebellion  "i  Would  it  not 


9 

under  such  circumstances  be  the  duty  of  the  president  or  his  military  agents 
or  officers  to  arrest  such  editor;  and  suppress  such  newspaper,  with  artil- 
lery, if  it  could  not  otherwise  be  suppressed.  Yet  this  address  says,  with- 
out any  qualification  whatever,  "we  deny  the.  power  of  the  executive  to 
trammel  the  freedom  of  the  press  by  the  suppression  of  newspapers,"  &c. 

The  error  of  this  part  of  the  address  is  that  it  is  not  directed  against  an 
improper  exercise  of  the  power,  but  denies  the  poiver,  in  even  a  proper  and 
absolutely  necessary  case,  to,  arrest  a  spy  in  a  free  State,  or  prevent  a  news- 
paper giving  information  to  the  enemy  that  will  render  a  campaign  abortive. 
This  egregious  error  is  the  more  to  be  reprehended,  that  it  was  penned  and 
endorsed  by  an  eminent  lawyer,  who  well  knew  the  broad  distinction  be- 
tween the  existence  of  a  power,  and  the  improper  exercise  of  it  in  a  given 
instance. 

Manifestly  the  character  of  the  offence  must  determine  whether  it  be 
amenable  to  military  punishment,  and  not  the  place  or  State  where  it  was 
committed.  If  a  soldier  from  the  rebel  array  is  really  a  spy,  it  can  make 
no  difference  with  the  mode  and  extent  of  his  arrest  and  punishment, 
whether  the  field  of  labor  assigned  him  by  his  commander  be  on  the  north 
or  the  south  side  of  the  Ohio,  at  New  Orleans  or  New  York.  If  the  act 
complained  of  be  in  its  character  a  military  offence,  then  it  merits  and 
must  receive  the  speedy  award  of  military  law.  The  arresting,  of  spies,  by 
warrants  from  the  Courts,  would  be  a  good  joke  indeed.  Somewhere  in 
Burke's  works,  he  ridicules  the  Chief  Justice  of  India,  by  representing 
that  he  tried  to  suppress  a  rebellion  with  affidavits.  Mr.  Ryan  must  have 
risen  from  a  recent  reading  of  Burke's  works,  when  he  penned  this  part  of 
his  address.  It  is  unnecessary  to  speak  of  particular  instances  of  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  power  to  arrest  and  to  suppress  newspapers,  or  to  express  any 
opinion  as  to  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  its  exercise  in  particular 
cases,  because  this  is  not  discussed  in  the  address.  The  subject  of  discus- 
sion is  the  power  itself;  and  not  whether  it  has  been  improperly  exercised. 
No  power  was  ever  lodged  with  any  human  being  that  might  not  be  mis- 
takenly exercised;  but  this  is  no  argument  against  the  existence  of  the 
power. 

And  every  lawyer  knows  that  wherever  a  power  is  lodged,  there  rests 
also  with  it  the  right  to  judge  whether  the  proper  case  is  presented  for  its 
exercise;  this  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  utility  of  the  power.  The 
President  and  his  military  subordinates  must  therefore  judge,  answerable 
to  public  opinion  and  on  their  consciences  to  their  God,  whether  the  proper 
case  exists  to  make  a  military  arrest,  to  batter  down  a  fort,  or  blow  up  a 
newspaper.  The  President  must  judge  of  the  conduct  of  men,  and  of  the 
character  of  the  publications,  and  say  whether  they  are  of  a  class  to  be 
proceeded  against  in  the  Courts,  or  with  bayonets.  The  President,  for  in- 
stance, must  judge  of  the  character  of  Mr.  Ryan's  address,  and  of  this 
criticism  of  it,  and  if  in  his  opinion  either  are  calculated  to  spread  dissen- 
sions in  the  north,  to  such  extent  as  to  render  present  aid  to  the  military 
opeiations  of  the  south,  he  is  as  clearly  authorized  to  deal  with  the  author, 
as  he  would  be  to  deal  with  him  for  doing  any  other  act  that  directly  aided 
the  rebel  campaign  of  arms.  If  a  paper  embodies  abstract  doctrines  merely 
erroneous,  but  which  cannot  contribute  directly  or  presently  to  aid  the  mil- 
itary operations  of  the  enemy;  but  are  like  the  address  only  calculated  and 
intended  to  secure  for  its  author  favorable  political  considerations  on  the 


10 

part  of  southern  politicians  after  the  war  is  ended,  then  I  suppose  the  author 
should  not  be  arrested  without  a  warrant  from  the  Courts;  but  it'  the  paper 
contained  information  or  sentiments  directly  and  presently  calculated  to 
strengthen  the  rebel,  and  paralyze  the  loyal  arm,  on  the  field  of  battle  ; 
then  the  author  should  be  arrested,  and  punished  by  military  law.  If  the 
offender  is  found  giving  present  aid  to  the  military  operations  of  the  enemy, 
whether  with  his  pen  or  his  sword,  he  is  amenable  to  military  law.  Anil 
the  President  must  of  course  judge  in  any  given  instance  to  which  class  a 
publication  belongs  and  treat  it  accordingly.  We  can  comceive  that  in  a 
critical  point  of  a  campaign,  the  mere  announcement  on  a  certain  day  in  a 
New  York  paper,  that  ten  regiments  from  New  England  Ind  landed  in  New 
York  that  morning,  might  give  the  enemy  information  upon  which  he  would 
either  fight  or  decline  to  fight,  at  a  particular  time  or  place,  and  thus  enable 
the  enemy  to  win  a  victory  over  us,  or  prevent  us  from  winning  one  over 
him.  And  this  publication,  if  made  for  this  purpose,  would  render  the 
editor  as  guilty  of  treason,  as  though  he  had  contributed  with  his  musket  to 
help  the  rebel  army  to  gain  a  victory  or  avoid  a  defeat.  The  prosecution 
of  a  campaign  requires  a  great  variety  of  efforts  to  ensure"  its  success. 
Some  must  fight  in  the  field,  some  must  take  care  that  provisions  and  ammu- 
nition are  furnished  to  those  who  do  fight;  and  others  must  act  as^pies  and 
obtain  and  transmit  military  information.  It  is  immaterial  which  one  of 
these  necessary  branches  of  military  service  a  man  is  found  performing,  hs 
is  equally  guilty  of  treason;  he  is  equally  rendering  present  aid  to  the  mil- 
ity  operations  of  the  enemy;  and  is  equally  subject  to  summary  arrest  and 
military  trial  and  punishment. 


There  are  many  other  equally  unfounded  and  erroneous  statements  in 
this  address,  affirmed  with  a  confidence  that  may  well  make  a  man  who 
reads  it  wonder  whether  he  is  dreaming,  or  listening  to  a  burlesque  upon 
patriotism  and  democracy;  but  these  few  things  may  serve  to  illustrate  the 
balance. 

There  are  some  occasional  and  shining  truths,  that  half  redeem  the  ad- 
dress; such  for  instance  as  this — "Unfortunately,  among  many  elements  of 
good  and  greatness,  fanaticism  emigrated  to  this  country."  If  any  one 
doubts  it,  let  him  read  the  address.  And  in  considering  it,  it  is  a  consola 
tory  and  conclusive  evidence  that  the  democrats  of  Wisconsin  are  sound 
and  loyal,  that  go  where  you  will  in  this  city  since  its  publication,  you  hear 
it  spoken  of  only  in  terms  of  unmeasured  denunciation. 

While  a  man's  opinions  are  kept  to  himself,  they  are  his  own;  but  when 
they  are  foisted  in  this  way  upon  a  great  political  party,  as  the  expression 
of  their  creed  and  doctrines,  every  man  who  now  does,  or  ever  did  call 
himself  a  democrat,  is  interested  and  authorized  to  protest  against  them. 


11  .    , 

The  Milwaukee  News  of  the  day  after  the  publication  of  the  above  Re- 
view, contained  the  following  : 

THE  STATE  ADDRESS  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Some  of  "  the  boys"  in  these  days  are  getting  wiser  than  their  fathers. 
They  have  discovered  that  war — all  war,  and  especially  a  war  to  suppress 
insurrection — "  is  entirely  outside  the  Constitution."  So  they  attack  the 
Address  of  the  Democratic  State  Convention,  because  it  says  : 

"  The  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  laws  enacted  in  pursuance  of  it,  are  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land  in  all  conditions  of  the  country,  The  constitution  is  inviolate  in 
all  circumstances  of  the  people  and  the  government.  State  necessity  has  no  power  to  sus- 
pend the  constitution  or  abridge  the  freedom  of  the  people." 

For  the  benefit  of  those  who  think  this  is  bad  democracy,  we  quote  from 
Andrew  Jackson — not  to  convince  them  that  Jackson  was  right,  but  to 
show  what  an  "  old  fool"  Old  Hickory  was.  In  his  proclamation  to  South 
Carolina,  he  said  of  the  Constitution; 

"  We  have  hitherto  relied  on  it  as  the  perpetual  bond  of  our  union.  We  have  received  it 
as  the  work  of  the  assembled  wisdom  of  the  nation.  We  have  trusted  to  it  as  the  sheet-anchor 
of  our  safety  IN  THE  STORMY  TIMES  OF  CONFLICT  WITH  A  FOREIGN  OR  DOMESTIC  FOE." 

Again,  in  the  same  proclamation  : 

"The  laws  of  the  United  States  must  be  executed.  I  have  no  discretionary  powers  on 
the  subject — my  duty  is  emphatically  pronounced  in  the  Constitution." 

Again,  addressing  the  people  of  the  United  States  : 

"  I  rely  with  equal  confidence  on  your  undivided  support  in  my  determination  to  execute 
the  laws — to  preserve  the  Union  by  all  Constitutional  means." 

Again,  in  his  message  to  Congress,  on  the  South  Carolina  rebellion,  he 

says  : 

"  If  these  measures  cannot  be  defeated  and  overcome  by  the  powers  conferred  by  the  Conttitution 
on  the  federal  government,  the  Constitution  must  be  considered  as  incompetent  to  its  own  de- 
fence, the  supremacy  of  the  laws  is  at  an  end,  and  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  citizens 
can  no  longer  receive  protection  from  the  government  of  the  Union  !'' 

Again — still  speaking  of  the  southern  rebellion  : 

"  The  duty  of  the ''government  seems  to  be  plain.  It  inculcates  a  recognition  of  that 
state  [South  Carolina]  as  a  member  of  the  Union,  and  subject  to  its  authority  ;  a  vindica- 
tion of  the  just  power  of  the  Constitution;  *  *  and  the  execution  of  the  laws  BY  ALL 

CONSTITUTIONAL  MEANS." 

George  Washington,  himself  the  President  of  the  Convention  which 
framed  the  Constitution,  was  another  such  crazy  old  fellow  on  this  question. 
In  1794  he  suppressed  a  miniature  rebellion  in  Pennsylvanin  by  the  use  of 
the  militia,  and  before  he  marched  his  soldiers  there,  he  issued  a  proclama- 
tion which  began  in  this  way  : 

"Now,  therefore,  1,  George  Washington,  President  of  the  United  States,  in  obedience  to 
that  high  and  irresistible  duty  consigned  to  me  by  the  Constitution,  &c." 

Washington  and  Jackson  thought  war  should  be  carried  on  within  and 
according  to  the  Constitution  "  by  constitutional  means."  Neither  of  them 
ever  imagined  that  they  could  carry  on  war  without  the  authority  of  the 
Constitution.  Neither  of  them  supposed  that  a  "  military  necessity"  could 
exist  for  a  violation  of  any  one  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution. — 
The  whole  history  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  shows  that  the  Consti- 
tution was  intended  to  be  adapted  to  all  the  exigencies  of  war,  granting 
every  power  necessary  to  carry  on  war  without  rendering  its  own  violation 
necessary.  And  the  man  who  supposes  that  a  state  of  war  implies  the  hos- 


12 

tility  of  the  government  to  the  Constitution,  or  a  power  in  the  administra- 
tion to  trample  upon  the  Constitution,  or  any  part  of  iu  s.-icivd  provisions, 
never  had  his  mind  enlightened  with  the  first  gleam  ui'  democracy  of  any 
sort. 


- 


M.  H.  CARPENTER'S  REPLY  TO  THE  ABOVE. 

An  Editor  was  never  more  unfortunate  in  defending  a,  bad  cause,  than 
was  the  Editor  of  the  News,  when  he  attempted  to  sustain  the  doctrines  of 
Mr.  Ryan's  address,  by  reference  to  the  lives  or  writings  of  Washington  or 
Jackson.  The  quotations  with  which  the  Editor  has  adorned  his  article 
have  not  the  remotest  application  to  the  point  under  discussion,  that  is, 
does  the  Constitution  provide  for  all  the  exigencies i.of  war  ?.  But  there 
are  in  the  life  and  writings  of  Jackson,  and  in  the  speeches  and  reports  of 
Jackson  democrats,  abundant  material  to  condemn  Mr.  Ryan's  address,  in 
its  letter  and  in  its  spirit. 

To  say  nothing  of  his  Florida  campaign,  in  which  he  exercised  innumer- 
able imperial  powers,  which  he  and  his  friends  justified,  not  by  the  consti- 
tution, but  by  the  necessities  of  the  case,  let  us  come  directly  to  the  last 
war,  when  Jackson  had  military  command  at  New  Orleans  ;  and  there  we 
shall  find  many  cases  directly  in  point,  and  completely  overthrowing  Mr. 
Ryan's  theory,  that  the  constitution  is  a  regulation  oftvar,  or  a  guide  to  the 
President  and  his  military  subordinates,  in  conducting  the  war.  We  shall 
see  many  things  which  Jackson  did  outside  the  constitution  ;  and  how  he 
and  his  political  friends  defended  his  conduct. 

He  first  proclaimed  martial  law,  and  while  it  was  in  force,  though  after 
the  report  of  peace  had  reached  the  United  States,  the  Louisiana  Gazette, 
a  newspaper  printed  at  New  Orleans,  published  a  certain  article  which 
called  from  the  old  hero  a  communication  denying  its  truth,  which  he  sent 
by  an  aid-de-camp  to  the  offending  editor,  "with  a  written  order  requiring 
its  insertion  in  the  next  issue  of  the  paper,  and  concluding  as  follows  : 

"Henceforth  it  is  expected  that  no  publication  of  the  n;Uim>  of  th;it  herein  alluded  to 
and  censured,  will  appear  in  an//  pn/nr  >•/  t/ic  cili/,  unless  the  editor  sbiill  li.ive  previously  as- 
certained its  correcfniess,  ami  ynintd  /icnnixsioH  /<*;•  it*  in.-ii •/•i.'nii  /r-j.-n  tfanroper  source." 

During  this  state  of  things,  Frenchman  attempted  to  elude  the  General's 
grasp,  under  so-called  protections  from  the  French  Consul  at  New  Orleans  ; 
and  Jackson  issued  an  order  requiring  all  unnaturalized  Frenchmen,  to- 
gether witli  the  French  Consul,  to  leave  New  Orleans  within  three  days, 
and  not  to  return  to  within  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles  of  the  city,  until 
the  news  of  the  ratification  of  peace  should  be  otlicially  published.  This 
ordc/  was  thought  by  some  to  be  "  outside  the  constitution  :''  and  they  pro- 
tected against  it  in  an  article  in  the  Louisiana  Connor,  (another  newspaper 
or  the  city,)  v'iueli  protest  reads  exceedingly  like.  Mr,  ]{,ifa>is  address,  and 
jenounces  the  order  us  illegal  atid  unconstitutional.  Thereupon  Jackson 
ordered  the  editor  to  headquarters,  and  compelled  him  to  disclose  the  name 
of  the  writer,  Louallier  ;  and  then  Jackson  sent  a  file  of  soldiers  to  arrest 
Louallicr.  Indignant  that  his  article,  which  is  in  the  very  strain  ot  Mr. 


13 

Ryan's  address,  and  written  to  prove  that  "the  constitution  provides  for  all 
theexi-enciesofwar,"  should  be  regarded  as  cause  for  arrest,  Loualher 
applied"  to  Jud'-c  11:.  11  of  the  United  States  Court,  for  a  writ  of  habeas  cor- 
pus. That  worthy  functionary,  believing  like  Mr.  Ryan,  that  the  constitu- 
tion does  indeed  provide  tor  all  the  exigencies  of  war  ;  that  the  freedom  o 
the  press  coul'd  not  be  trammelled,  and  that  the  a«rest  of  Loualher,  without 
process,  in  a  loyal  State,  was  illegal,  allowed  tho  writ,  The  officer  came 
to  serve  it ;  and  Jackson  being  informed  of  what  had  taken  place,  rushed 
to  meet  the  officer,  seized  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  from  his  hand,  and  de- 
tained it ;  and  immediately  ordered  Judge  Hall  to  be  arrested  and  he  was 
imprisoned,  in  the  same  room  with  the  French  expounder  of  the  doctrine 
that  the  constitution  provides  for  all  the  exigencies  of  war. 


Now,  actions  speak  louder  than  words.  This  is  what  Jackson  did  ;  and 
that,  too,  in  a  loyal  State  ;  and  this  he  did  as  a  representative  of  the  Pres- 
ident, exercising" by  delegation  from  the  then  President,  Mr.  Madison,  the 
President's  executive  power.  Turn  now  to  Mr.  Ryan's  address  and  seo 
how  it  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  Gen.  Jackson. 

1.  •'  M>  dfivi  th".  power  of  the  executive  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  the  loy- 
al States.     We  deny  that  this  act,  materially  changing   the  laws  of  the  land,  is  an  execu- 
tive act." 

•*     Jackson  suspended  the    writ  ;      and  then  suspended   the  Judge  who 
issued  it;  and  all  this  in  a  loyal  State. 

2.  "  TFe  flcni/  the  pawer  of  the  executive  to  make  arrests  iu  the  loyal  States. 

There  are  1'cderal  Courts  in  all  the  loyal  ?(ates  with  full  power  and  jurisdiction  to  punish 
ish  all  crimes  ag.iinst  the  United  States." 

Jackson  made  arrests  in  a  loyal  State  ;  and  arrested  the  Judge  of  a  fed- 
eral Court  in  a  loyal  State. 

5.  "  We  iifiiy  the  power  of  the  executive  to  trammel  the  freedom  of  the'  press,  by  the 
suppression  of  newspapers." 

Jackson  trammelled  the  freedom  of  the  press  ;  and  if  he  did  not  do  it  by 
suppressing  the  newspaper,  it  was  because  the  editor  who  had  heard  the 
lion's  roar,  did  not  provoke  his  paw. 

Here  then,  are  three  distinct  planks  of  Mr.  Ryan's  platform,  which  ex- 
clude Jackson  from  the  tents  of  the  democracy,  as  clearly  as  other  portions 
exclude  Douglas.  When  this  address  shall  be  universally  applied,  and  all 
those  shall  be  excluded  who  do  not  believe  its  doctrines,  or  practice  its  les- 
sons, Mr.  Ryan  will  remain  the  leader,  and  the  Neivs  the  organ,  of  a  glori- 
ous LITTLE  party,  the  harmony  of  which  will  never  be  disturbed  by  any 
impulsive  patriotism. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  not  only  did  Jackson  when  exercising  by  delegation 
the  executive  power  of  the  President,  deliberately  violate  these  three  funda- 
mental dogmas  of  Mr.  Ryan's  address,  but  he  and  his  friends  afterwards, 
in  many  places,  and  during  many  years,  in  speeches  before  the  people,  in 
legal  arguments,  in  State  papers,  in  reports  and  debates  before  Congress, 
added  the  weight  of  their  opinion  and  their  votes  to  sustain  the  conduct  of 
Gen.  Jackson  ;  and  thus  to  condemn  the  principles  of  this  address. 

After  martial  law  ceased  in  New  Orleans,  the  released  Judge  Hall  called 


14 

the  conquering  hero  "before  him  to  teach  him  that  thereafter  he  must  con- 
duct was  inside  the  constitution  ;  must  not  trammel  the  freedom  of  the 
press  ;  rmtst  not  make  arrests  in  loyal  States,  and  a  great  many  other  things, 
all  of  which  can  be  found  in  Mr.  Ryan's  address.  Upon  this  occasion 
Jackson  delivered  a  long  paper  in  his  defence  over  his  own  signature,  fully 
justifying  his  conduct,  which  fills  eleven  columns  of  Niles'  Register,  and 
every  paragraph  of  which  is  in  deadly  antagonism  with  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
Ryan's  address — (8  Niles'  Register,  245.)  One  paragraph  will  give  an 
idea  of  the  paper  : 

"  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  directed  for  his  (Louallier's)  enlargement.  The  very  case 
which  had  been  foreseen,  the  very  contingency  on  which  martial  law  was  intended  to  ope- 
rate, had  now  occurred.  The  civil  magistrate  seemed  to  think  it  his  duty  to  enforce  the  enjo;/- 
ment  of  civil  rights,  although  the  consequences  which  have  been  described  would  probably 
result.  An  unbending  sense  of  what  he  seemed  to  think  the  conduct  which  his  station  required, 
might  have  induced  him  to  order  the  liberation  of  the  prisoner.  This,  under  the  respondent's 
sense  of  duty,  would  have  produced  a  conflict  which  it  was  his  wish  to  avoid.  No  other 
course  remained  then,  but  to  enforce  the  principles  which  he  had  laid  down  as  his  guide ; 
and  to  suspend  the  exercise  of  this  judicial  power,  whenever  it  interfered  with  the  necessary 
means  of  defence.  The  only  effectual  way  to  do  this  icas  to  place  the  Judge  in  a  situation 
in  which  his  interference  could  not  counteract  the  measures  of  defence,  or  give  confidence 
to  the  mutinous  disposition  that  had  shown  itself  in  so  alarming  a  degree.  Merely  to 
have  disobeyed  the  writ  would  have  increased  the  evil,  bnt  to  have  obeyed_  it  wot  wholly  re- 
pugnant to  the  respondent's  idea  of  the  public  safety  and  to  his  own  sense  of  duty.  The  Judge 
was  therefore  confined  and  removed  beyond  the  lines  of  defence." 

This  document  is  signed  with  the  great  name  of  "  Andrew  Jackson." 

The  Judge  however,  was  inexorable,  and  Gen.  Jackson  was  fined  one 
thousand  dollars,  and  paid  his  fine. 

Subsequently,  and  after  Gen.  Jackson  had  been  President,  and  had  re- 
tired to  private  life,  a  bill  was  introduced  into  Congress 'to  refund  the  fine, 
upon  the  ground  that  the  conduct  of  Jackson  had  been  perfectly  proper  ; 
and  this  led  to  a  debate  by  most  of  the  statesmen  of  that  day  npon  the 
very  point  now  under  discussion. 

Robert  J.  Walker,  in  the  senate,  submitted  a  report  upon  this  subject,  in 
which  he  said  : 

"  The  law  which  justified  this  act,  was  the  great  law  of  necessity  ;  it  was  the  law  of  self- 
defence.  This  great  law  of  necessity — of  defence  of  self,  of  home,  and  of  country — never 
was  designed  to  be  abrogated  by  any  statute,  or  by  any  constitution." 

Mr.  Payne,  of  Alabama,  speaking  upon  this  subject,  said  : 

"/  shall  not  contend  that  the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  United  Stales  authorize  the  declara- 
tion of  martial  law  by  any  authority  whatever  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  UNKNOWN  TO  THE  CON- 
STITUTION OR  LAWS." 

And  speaking  of  the  argument  that  if  the  constitution  did  not  authorize 
it,  the  general  ought  not  to  declare  martial  law,  he  says  : 

"  Who  could  tolerate  this  idea  ?  An  Arnold  might,  but  no  patriotic  American  could.  It 
may  be  asked  upon  what  principle  a  commander  can  declare  martial  law,  when  it  is  conce- 
ded that  the  constitution  or  laws  afford  him  no  authority  to  do  so  ?  t  answer,  upon 
that  principle  of  self-defence  which,  rises  paramount  to  all  written  laws;  and  the  justifi- 
cation of  the  officer  who  assumes  the  responsibility  of  acting  upon  that  principle,  must  rest 
upon  the  neceseity  of  the  case." 

Mr.  Livingston,  in  a  written  document  submitted  by  Jackson  to  the  court 
as  a  part  of  his  defence,  gave  his  opinion  as  follows  : 

"  On  the  nature  and  effect  of  the  proclamation  of  martini  law  by  M.-ijur  General  Jackson, 
my  opinion  is,  that  such  proclamation  is  UNKXOWN  to  Uie  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  ;  that  it  is  to  be  justified  only  by  the  necessities  of  the  case,"  &c. 

The  legislatures  of  several  of  the  states,  instructed  their  senators,  and 


15 

• 

requested  their  representatives  to  vote  for  the  re-payment  of  this  fine  with 
cost  and  interest.  The  legislature  of  New  York,  then  largely  democratic, 
prefaced  their  resolutions  as  follows  : 

"  WHEREAS,  the  salutary  energy  of  General  Jackson  at  New  Orleans,  during  the  campaign 
of  1814,  and  1815,  hag  repeated!'/  received  the  approbation  of  the  American  people  :  And, 
whereas.  Congress,  on  the  loth  day  of  February  1816,  voted  thanks  to  that  illustrious  citi- 
wn  for  his  gallantry  at  New  Orleans,  and  directed  a  gold  medal  to  be  struck  and  presented 
to  him  in  testimony  of  the  high  sense  entertained  by  Congress  of  events  so  memorable  and 
services  so  eminent ; 

"  Resolved,  Therefore,"  &c. 

Levi  Woodbury,  equally  eminent  as  a  jurist  and  a  democratic  politician 
of  the  school  of  Jackson,  speaking  in  the  Senate  upon  the  question  whether 
martial  law  was  properly  continued  after  reports  reached  Jackson  of  the 
ratification  of  peace,  said  : 

"  It  would  be  conceded  at  once  that  this  question  was  not  to  be  argued  technically,  by 
special  pleading ;  for  technically  speaking,  there  was  perhaps  no  constitutional  authority  for 
declaring  martial  law  in  the  way  in  which  it  had  been  done.  The  necessity,  the  expediency, 
the  moral  obligation  would  be  allowed  as  sufficient  authority,"  &c. 

While  this  matter  was  before  Congress,  General  Jackson  wrote  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Linn,  which  was  read  by  him  in  the  Senate,  in  which  Jackson  says: 

"  It  is  not  the  amount  of  the  fine  that  is  important  to  me  ;  but  it  is  the  fact  that  it  was 
imposed  far  reasons  that  were  not  well  founded ;  and  for  the  exercise  of  an  authority  which 
was  necessary  to  the  successful  defence  of  New  Orleans.  In  this  point  of 

view,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  country  is  interested  in  the  passage  of  the  bill :  for  exigencies 
like  those  which  existed  at  New  Orleans  may  ayain  arise;  and  a  Commanding  General  ought  not 
to  be  deterred  from  taking  the  necessary  responsibility  from  the  reflection  that  it  is  in  the  power 
of  a  vindictive  judge  to  impair  his  private  fortune,  and  place  a  etain  upon  his  character 
which  cannot  be  removed." 

Many  pages  might  be  quoted  from  the  'discussions  of  those  days  to  the 
same  point  ;  but  surely  these  are  sufficient.  Douglas  himself  made  his 
first  great  speech  upon  this  subject;  but  as  he  is  no  longer  recognized  as  a 
democrat,  the  New*  would  never  forgive  my  quoting  his  speech  against  Mr. 
Ryan's  address.  But  afterwards  General  Jackson,  in  a  personal  interview 
tendered  his  thanks  to  Douglas  for  his  speech,  and  speaking  of  the  perfect 
justification  which  Douglas  had  made  out  for  him,  he  said  : 

"I  never  could  understand  how  it  was  that  the  performance  of  a  solemn  duty  to  my 
country — a  duty  which  if  I  had  neglected  would  have  made  me  a  traitor  in  the  sight  of  God  and 
man,  could  properly  be  pronounced  a  violation  of  the  Constitution." 

After  mature  consideration,  and  while  the  democratic  party  had  the 
majority  in  both  houses,  Congress  repaid  *he  fine  imposed  upon  Jackson; 
arid  thus  vindicated  him  from  all  censure  for  saving  his  country;  and  sanc- 
tioned in  advance,  the  conduct  of  any  President  or  Commander,  who  under 
like  necessity  shall  take  the  responsibility  of  conducting  war  "  outside  the 
Constitution." 

One  of  General  Jackson's  letters,  in  justification  of  his  military  conduct, 
contains  the  following  postscript  : 

"  It  will  be  recollected  that  in  the  revolutionary  Avar,  at  a  Urn*  of  groat  trial,  General 
Washington  ordered  deserters  to  be  shot  without  trial.  Captain  Reed  under  this  order,  hav- 
ii;g  arrested  three,  had  one  shot  without  trial;  but  he  (General  Washington)  reprimanded 
Reed  for  not  shooting  the  -whole  three." 

Washington  and  Jackson  met  the  exigencies  of  war,  not  with  statutes 
and  constitutions  ;  but  with  a  healthy  application  of  military  law ;  and  in 
the  proper  case  with  summary  arrest,  and  speedy  death.  The  severity  and 
military  vigor  of  Jackaon's  New  Orleans  campaign,  would  end  this  rebellion 


16 

« 

in  six  weeks  ;  hence  Breckeiiridge  labored  to  prove  that  the  war  power  Is 
limited  by  the  constitution. 

The  principle  announced  by  Breckenridge  is  elaborated,  polished,  hid  in 
meal,  sugared  over  with  an  artful  expression  of  conceded  truths,  in  this  ad- 
dress ;  and  democrats  are  bidden  to  fall  down  before  it.  The  Neius,  the 
organ  of  this  doctrine  in  Wisconsin,  says  "  (he  boys" — that  is  those  who  do 
not  believe  in  it — should  read  Jackson.  Bowing  to-its  authority,  and  will- 
ing to  have  our  democracy  corrected  if  it  was  in  fault,  "  the  boys"  have 
been  to-day  to  the  fountain  head  of  democratic  faith,  illustrated  by  prac- 
tice ;  not  any  barren  recital  of  dead  dogmas,  but  the  living,  abiding,  daily 
counsel  and  conduct  of  Andrew  Jackson  ;  and  it  appears  that  if  this  ad- 
dress embodies  democratic  opinions,  democracy  has  sprung  up  since  Jack- 
son went  down  to  the  grave. 

Now,  Mr.  Editor  of  the  News,  the  above  quotations  are  the  fruit  of  a 
day's  reading  of  the  times  of  Jackson,  undertaken  upon  your  suggestion.— 
If  you  know  any  other  father  of  democracy,  whose  writings  you  think  can 
be  safely  relied  on  to  prove  that  the  war  power  is  limited  Inj  tlic  constitution, 
please  name  him,  and  the  "  the  boys"  will  search  and  give  you  the  result  of 
the  investigation.  And  until  some  approved  democratic  writer  can  be  re- 
ferred to  as  maintaining  such  suicidal  doctrine,  wo  shall  continue  to  square 
our  democracy  by  the  practice  of  Jackson,  and  tin-  teachings  of  Woodburry, 
Walker,  Douglas,  and  all  the  worthies  ivho  have  fj'>ne  before. 

In  reading  and  re-reading  Mr.  Ryan's  address,  \vr  are  more  and  more  as- 
tonished,  that  any  democratic  writer  should  have  the  audacity  to  condemn 


political  heresy.  Perhaps  the  o  .}> 
is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  admitted  by  the  News  wlicn  speaking  of  this  con- 
vention, that  "not  a  feiv  were  there  ii'ho  had  never  before  participated  in  tin- 
proceedings  of  democratic  convention,  or  vj!cda  democratic  ballot."  Such 
a  convention  could  not  be  expected  to  know  much  about  democracy. 


/ 


u 


** 

>      ;:*»>.       •'>     ' 


^ 


?  5 


>>i 


»•>•>    ^  >•> 

•*   >     >      df          ->    '> 


^>  -  »  T3*i>^» 


